07/28/09 09:18 - ID#49404

Healthcare Ramblings

I'm so frustrated. Usually my writing makes sense, and it's easy to understand, and gives some background and links.... but I just can't. I have no idea where to start. This freaking issue is huge and it's full of bullshit. I'm glad I don't have cable, because I would spend my days screaming at cable news and get nothing done.

I'm worried that the government is not going to change healthcare enough to make a differance. They may change some things, but it could make our lives worse, and make the insurence companies richer. Like making it mandatory that we get coverage, and mandatory that employers provide coverage, insurance companies would love that.

Insurance companies are just parasites, they add no value to healthcare whatsoever. It's not even insurance, there's a good chance that when you finally get sick or injured they won't even cover your ass. They'll claim you commited insurance fraud, then it's your lawyer versus theirs.

You know 60% of bankruptcys are due to healthcare bills? and 75% of those people had health insurance! Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem.

Socialized medicine.. Rationing care.. It's all scare tactics invented by pharmeceutical and insurance companies. You know we already ration care in this country, it's based on income. The working poor get nothing. Pay or Die.

They're trying to tell you that Obama's a socialist... he's not even a liberal! He's barely left of center, and all these conservatives are shaking in their boots that he'll turn us into Cuba. It makes me furious because all this fearmongering has nothing to do with policy, it's all politics. Some Republicans just want to see the president fail. and their happy to be on the side of insurance companies, because if they get tired of Washington they can always get more money working as a lobbyist anyway. They get rich, so fuck you, and your country.

Not sure, right.. nobody's that self centered.. here's just one case in point "one of the Blue Dog Coalition's founders: former Representative Billy Tauzin of Louisiana. Mr. Tauzin switched to the Republicans soon after the [Blue Dog] group's creation; eight years later he pushed through the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, a deeply irresponsible bill that included huge giveaways to drug and insurance companies. And then he left Congress to become, yes, the lavishly paid president of PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry lobby."

What's up with lobyists anyway? they're "so powerful", boo hoo, it's soo hard... even when 70% of the public is in favor of a Public option

Seriously, in this country? 70% in favor of anything is a freaking landslide. But it's still a battle to the finish because of the money being thrown around Washington. And the people who are stalling or compromising are the ones raking in the cash, like Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, and the 'Blue Dog' coalition in the house.

Ysterday news broke that the Senate Finance Committee version of Healthcare reform will not include a public option (mission accomplished health insurance pricks). Instead we'll be allowed to form health insurance co-ops that nobody has ever bothered to explain. Their plan also eliminates the employer mandate, which I think is a good thing, but within the narrow confines of washington Healthcare reform it actually raises costs for the government, especially if the individual mandate still exists.

Alright... that brings me to a really important point.

Why are employers responsible for the health of the American people?

Companies are just a bunch of people trying to make a living, why should they care where you go to the doctor? I don't think the burden of healthcare should be on employers at all. I understand offering benefits, to help you retain good employees, like paid vacations, cellphones, or whatever. But Healthcare? It's not a luxury, everybody will need healthcare at some point in their lives. Something that important should be guaranteed by the government. Like Fire, Police, Schools, Water, some things should not be left to chance. I think it's irresponsable for the government to expect business to cary the burden.

You know.. if my house is on fire, I call the fire department. If I've been robbed, I call the police. If I have a medical emergency...... Pay or Die. Something is wrong here.

I run a small business too, if I start hiring employees are they going to ask "where's my healthcare?", Really? I have enough to worry about, go ask Uncle Sam what the problem is.

Right now they're proposing taxing businesses that don't provide healthcare in order to pay for a new system. If you have over 20-30 employees you pay a fine of around $700 per person per year. Sure it makes sense if you expect to get healthcare from your employer, and we all want to get revenge on Wal-Mart for screwing their employees all these years..... But I don't think the employer based healthcare system makes sense, and I don't think coercing companies to provide healthcare coverage is a good idea, especially when we're losing jobs. Instead I think every individual should contribute, whether they employ people or not. I don't think employers should bear the burdin anymore.

I support a national Single Payer system, call it "nationalized", "government run", "socialized" or whatever you want. It's the only thing that makes sense. Abolish Health Insurance Companies, give that money to the government because they can do it cheaper and better, and they can cover everybody.

I want to choose my doctor, my hospital, my surgeries, I don't want to waste my time reading fine print in insurance contracts. You know which insurance plan gives you the most choice? Medicare. You can go to any doctor. You don't have to choose from a list of acceptable providers and get stuck with somebody far from your house. Just go to anyone accepting new patients. It's true, medicare gives you the most choice. And the Republicans want to say that a government will take away your choices? Give me a break.

I support Medicare for All. There's actually a bill that does that HR 676

How to do it? Phaise it in, the first 5 years expand it to people over 55, next, people over 45. That gives the insurance companies time to shift their business to hurricane insurance or something else.

I'm supportive of a strong public option, but I'm worried that it won't work.

alright, that's all for now, I should write more often...

here's a humorous parting shot.

tinypliny writes at 09:06:11 07/30/09 - Comment #50390: That was a good article. Makes me want to move away from US as soon as I can. heh. I need to locate that book now.

Yuck. Don't you hate those pesky little drug pushers?! My advisor (back home) used to have them thrown out of the clinic by security.

jenks writes at 08:30:48 07/29/09 - Comment #50383: and dave, I am absolutely with you on knocking out big pharma. That direct-to-consumer advertising makes me crazy. "ask your doctor if they purple pill is right for you."

Um, no. How about "trust your doctor to know which medicines to use and when, and to give you the purple pill if you need it."

Or have the drug companies teach the doctors about their drugs and when to use them. Not over a $200 dinner- but a five minute chat in the hallway. But don't solicit patients to go pester their doctors and ask them for meds they probably don't need.

jenks writes at 08:27:26 07/29/09 - Comment #50382: Here is the New Yorker article, and a teaser quote to make you actually want to bother to click the link-

:::link:::

"McAllen has another distinction, too: it is one of the most expensive health-care markets in the country. Only Miamiâ€"which has much higher labor and living costsâ€"spends more per person on health care. In 2006, Medicare spent fifteen thousand dollars per enrollee here, almost twice the national average. The income per capita is twelve thousand dollars. In other words, Medicare spends three thousand dollars more per person here than the average person earns."

jenks writes at 08:23:13 07/29/09 - Comment #50381: Tiny, you might enjoy the book "Better" by Atul Gawande. It is amazingly insightful, and well-written. And he writes essays on things like 'how much should doctors be paid' and one on malpractice claims, and even one on trying to mop up a polio outbreak in india. Really great stuff. he also wrote a good article in the New Yorker a couple months ago analyzing health care costs.

As far as your visit to the ER- sadly I'd say $250 isn't bad. I honestly have no idea how much an xray costs, but I would guess a couple hundred dollars. But once the xray machine and all that is paid for- it really doesn't cost the hospital anything. But I will bet you, the resident didn't see one cent of that money, and the ER docs supervising him didn't get much of it.

However- while I think that charge is typical- I don't think you should have had to pay it. Usually student health centers are somehow subsidized by the university. I.e. even if you don't have formal insurance, you can usually be seen in the student health center for free/$20.

I had my tonsils out when I was 21, and saw the 'explanation of benefits' from the insurance company. My insurance covered it, so it just cost me a copay or deductible or whatever (and actually I was on my parents' at the time anyway)- but I just remember that the bill was thousands of dollars. A very large portion of that went to the anesthesiologists. Another very large portion went to the hospital for "fees" (operating room time, etc). And a modest portion went to the surgeon. But- the 'surgeon's fee' was listed as $1500 or something (I'm making that number up), and the "amount paid" was something like $600. So, the surgeon CHARGED 1500, and insurance paid him 600. And he no say in that- he just has to eat the difference.

My brother went to the ER a couple years ago with excruciating abdominal pain. They did some bloodwork and a CT to make sure it wasn't his appendix (which is unnecessary in my opinion, but this country is so litigious that ERs are notorious for overtesting, b/c they're afraid of missing something and being sued). In the end they said he had indigestion and sent him home with some pepcid. Which on the bill was $400. For the medication. $150 for phlebotomy. Etc.

That is the part I don't understand. Why does it cost $200 to give someone a liter of saline through an IV? $400 (or even 40, because I think there was a factor-of-ten math error on the bill) for something that would cost you $2 at walgreens? You know the nurse who started the IV and hung the saline isn't making that money. Where does it go?!

I still think that bad use of the ER is a LARGE part of health care waste. Some mom is either uninsured, or doesn't feel like waiting all day in the free clinic, or doesn't want to call her pediatrician to make an appt, so she takes her kid to the ER for sniffles. That is a waste of resources. It is called the EMERGENCY room. Not the "convenience department". People don't seem to get that.

And a tangent- listening to the radio today, heard all these ads for hospitals. Memorial Sloan Kettering, Columbia Presbyterian, etc.

And that makes me want to vomit.

HOSPITALS SHOULD NOT BE ADVERTISING TO TRY TO DRUM UP BUSINESS.

How much doctors should be paid I guess is debatable. But hospitals should ABSOLUTELY be non-profit as far as I'm concerned. But now they're like just another business, all competing with each other. PUKE.

Ok, enough ranting! Time to brave the rain and go find something to drink.

dcoffee writes at 08:22:26 07/29/09 - Comment #50380: Wow, that is a freaking loan. Loans are another issue, and I've posted my outrage on that before too. Maybe I'll hijack my own thread here and say that there are three big changes this country needs: Society should act collectively to provide 1)Higher Education, 2)Retirement, and 3)Healthcare.

The cost savings in a new Healthcare system SHOULD come mainly from Insurance Companies, and Pharmaceutical Companies. That's my target, and I think those industries know that their proffits could be threatened, and that's why they are lobbying so hard in Washington.

Doctors provide care. It's hands-on stuff. They're the ones preforming surgery, and directly helping the patients, they're the ones who deserve to be paid. But I wonder if Doctors might find their profession easier if they were just paid a good salary, and got periodic raises. Instead of needing to file some paperwork for everything they do in order to get paid by some middleman insurance company.

We need to save money primarily by cutting out the insurance middleman. Medicare is much more efficient than private insurance because it is not for profit, and because they don't have to advertise like insurance companies. That's where we'll save the most money.

The other part is Pharmeceutical companies. Oh boy do they like to advertise. I posted about that too, I think 40-50% of their income goes straight into advertising. And most of the R&D for drugs is done by the government and the patents are just bought by insurance companies. And when the patent expires they just change one molecule and start the advertising bonanza all over again.

it seems to me that the best way to save money is to go to a single payer insurance system, like Medicare for all, and to tightly regulate the pharmaceutical industries. And in order to eliminate medicare fraud I think we need to abandon the Fee for Service model that most hospitals and doctors use. You've heard of the MAYO clinic, they don't use fee for service, that's part of the reason they're so efficient.

Can we get there? Can we go far enough? I think we need to. Or else we'll be bankrupt. so, it's now or never. This healthcare debate has been going on for 80 years.

tinypliny writes at 07:09:22 07/29/09 - Comment #50377: Good point, ((e:jenks)) and I can't say I disagree at all. Your perspective on this issue might probably be more relevant to this debate than mine ever will be because I come from a completely different system altogether.

Healthcare doesn't just comprise the medical service in India and the other commonwealth nations. It also includes medical education. The government funds the complete healthcare system from the beginning to the end. My views are completely taken from that context. Even if some of the medical schools are expensive the best schools in India are government funded. Though you pay for the resources and the facilities, the salaries of the faculty are paid by the government.
I don't think I can even begin to imagine what medical education costs here.

Where I come from, doctor *are* almost like any other civil servants (with longer hours) because health is a basic need. If you get violently sick, you don't waste time looking for your health insurance card and wondering what doctor will see you, because you don't have to. It's your right to walk into a hospital and be treated. Obviously, this doesn't work as it should because we are abysmally ineffective when it comes to population control. Let me just say that I go to great lengths to NOT get sick here because I have learned that it is going to harm me in more ways than one. And that is really quite weird.

I never said that doctors don't deserve to get paid well but they certainly don't deserve to be overpaid at the expense of an ailing healthcare system. You make an excellent point when you point out the cost of pharmaceutical products and administrative fee of insurance companies. All these factors contribute blow by blow to the mess of healthcare in this country. (Yes, pharmacies and prescriptions at home are subsidized by the govt as well.)

Tell me something. How much does an X-Ray of a forearm really cost according to you? I fell off my bike in my first year here (I was learning how to ride, btw!). I severely sprained my wrist. I already had RSI and so the pain was unbearable to the point that I was close to fainting when they looked at my hand. It was swollen and ugly. Even then, I was fairly sure there were no broken bones but they decided to get an X-Ray anyway - and that was fine. The simple visit to the University health care system along with one x-ray of a single forearm and wrist cost me $250.

The resident saw me for 2 minutes. The nurse handed me an ace bandage and a strip of NSAID and it took 2 more minutes for the X-ray.

The break-up of the bill was:
$150 - X-Ray forearm
$100 - "UHS Medical Services"

Really? $100 for 2 minutes of the resident's and 30 seconds of the nurse's time? Does that sound logical as a serviee fee? At this rate, won't people earn several times of what they ever owed... and more in no time at all?

Again, this is just one isolated personal experience. I have no other first hand extensive personal dealings with healthcare here other than the patients and relative I occasionally talk to at Roswell. In the end, I can only be a spectator and comment on the scary dread of being a patient here and miss home where getting sick is never quite such a nightmare as it is here. :(

jenks writes at 06:09:36 07/29/09 - Comment #50375: Ack, I have too much, and too little, to say about this.

but first of all- thank you jason.
To answer your question- according to SallieMae.com, my current outstanding balance is $186,666.60.

And I am fortunate enough to NOT have any undergrad loans.

Is the point of being a doctor to make money? No. If all I cared about was money, I'd go work on wall street or something.

But, doctors put a LOT of time/money/blood/sweat/tears into their training, and sacrifice a LOT.

Some financial planner guy came and spoke to us once, showed an earnings graph of doctors vs "average" jobs. and yes, the doctors' line is a lot steeper, but it starts about 20 years later, and in fact "average joe" is better off than a doctor until they are about 55.

And with that said- can you name anyone that works harder than a doctor?
If I don't "deserve" to be paid well, who does? Athletes? Actors? CEOs of insurance companies? At least what I do is of some benefit to society.

I know that is not the point of the post, and I don't mean to hijack. And obviously I am biased here and take it to heart.

I realize there is a problem, and I don't have a solution.

Healthcare in this country is good. But it's way too expensive. So how do we cut costs? it seems like "pay doctors less" is always the first solution.
But, I dunno, how about "tell pfizer their antibiotic can't cost $500/day" or "don't pay the insurance CEO millions for sitting on his ass and DENYING people the care that they need"?

tiny your point is well taken, but to say that doctors should be paid like any other civil servant, because they CHOSE to go into medicine and knew what they were getting into, and they should be in it for the patients and not the money is not entirely fair.

Says me.

But, as always, your opinions may vary.

jason writes at 04:32:56 07/29/09 - Comment #50373: Nobody has put forth any myths concerning waiting lists. They're a fact of life for everyone. The number of specialists won't increase in America by adopting one system over another. I would suggest that once government gets a hold of something, there is no reversal, which is why it's so important to discuss pros and cons honestly. Government is the only enterprise we know where failure is rewarded.

You know, I'm with you guys, and I think everyone is, when it comes to day-to-day administration of health care. There certainly is waste and fraud. That has to be remedied no matter what direction we go.

The CBO has already shown us that under the current bill there will be no cost savings. I have to ask again, where are these savings coming from? It's vaporware. The options to bridge those gaps are not very palatable. Here is a link to an excerpt of Kent Conrad interviewing the Director of the CBO:

:::link:::

For us, there really is no such thing as having more people enrolled, equal or better care than they get now, on less money overall. Do you know what that sounds like to me? A pipe dream. Partisan Democrats say the Non-Partisan CBO is ignoring savings, yet decline to tell us what those savings are. I think I know why. You know, I think the savings side of the argument really should be dropped at this point until a plan comes forward that actually does save us money.

Regarding Doctors, I just don't approve of telling them how much they can earn. I have very, very dark words to describe that. How much PERSONAL debt has (e:Jenks) taken on to get to where she can actually get a paycheck? Nobody has a right to tell them, in essence, to do it out of the kindness of their own hearts. I don't care if doctors are wealthy - I expect them to be due to the length of education and training they receive, and the importance of their work. If the left starts to treat them like they treat the people who pay the country's bills?? Like YOU OWE ME THIS? Mmm. Not very flattering.

Lastly - about usage. Someone who goes to the doc every week and pays a copay is still costing every one of us for their own greed and thoughtlessness. They would never do so if they had to foot the entire $65 bill (what my doctor visit recently cost). I think we all can agree misuse of the system should be eradicated.

Bottom line - I want people to have health care, but I want a better plan. None of us should be afraid of questioning the proposals or the politicians. To think that politicians want to push this thing through without even reading the bill? And responding to the CBO by saying in essence they're lying? These people don't have our best interests at heart. Give me a better plan and I'll back it.

heidi writes at 01:50:01 07/29/09 - Comment #50372: There are already waiting lists - do you know how long it takes to get an appt with a specialist? Last year I scheduled something in January for JUNE!

I know too many people who are uninsured. They don't go to the doctor when they should because they can't afford it so they have complications from stuff that is so easily taken care of. Broken bones, months of digestive difficulties, diabetes & dialysis... <sigh>

dcoffee writes at 12:52:35 07/29/09 - Comment #50369: I just think it's a myth that in America we can get whatever medical treatment we need without a waiting list. And to say that it will be worse when managed by the government is pure speculation. This is a democracy, if we're not satisfied with the care we get we can use the phone and the voting booth to get it changed. I think we have more influence over the government than the Health Insurance Companies.

If you don't like the care you get from your insurance, what can you do? Most of us don't have a choice, you can't take your business elsewhere. Your employer provides one or two options, usually with the same insurance company. And insurance is exempt from anti-trust laws so they're already allowed to dominate the market.

And if somebody wants to go to the doctor every week they'll still have to pay, nobody said that the government would get rid of copays, it'll still cost you $10-$20, individuals will still have some 'skin in the game' there will be user fees.

If you know anyone who works in a hospital they will tell you how happy they are to deal with government health programs because there is so little 'red tape' compared to private insurance.

The potential for savings is huge too. Apparently we spend an average of $6000 more per person per year than the international average. The government alone already pays the same amount as other governments that cover everyone. And we citizens pay the other 40% of the total cost for.. what? to cover their administrative fees? If we kept the cost where it is, there would be no rationing whatsoever, there's plenty of cash to go around, but maybe it would be used to provide medical care instead.

The incentives in the healthcare system are totally backwards. Endless treatment is encouraged. "take two aspirin and call me in the morning" isn't profitable. The amount of paperwork and redundancy and inefficiency... there's so much bullshit that we need real structural changes.

Like I said, I don't think the current proposals go far enough.

Part of the waste comes from the fact that doctors bill for each service they preform. That's a lot of paperwork. Plus the more treatments they give, the more profit they make. Are we really encouraging doctors to look at patients and think, "how can I get most profit off of this person's problems" Why not put all doctors on a salary, so the only concern is making the patient comfortable and helping them stay well.

heidi writes at 12:03:45 07/29/09 - Comment #50367: Eliminating the bureaucracy of hospital and dr ofc insurance billing staff is where the real savings comes in - universal health care is the only way to really achieve this. Electronic medical record systems may reduce billing costs some, but those are incredibly complex systems to build and integrate. At the moment there are several EMR systems available and they don't talk to each other.

tinypliny writes at 09:12:43 07/29/09 - Comment #50366: "I think you have to dictate to doctors and hospitals exactly what they will be earning, which puts them in a tough position."

It doesn't. Medicine is not supposed to be a free-for-all "make-as-much-money-off-my-patients-as-I-can because I did some extra schooling and put in long hours I WANTED to put in" deal.

Doctors are not superhumans who are above the criticism of everyone else. They just got an extra degree. So what if they work 50 hour shifts? Its what they signed up to do. Its a profession and money is not the main motivation.

Doctors know exactly what they will be earning in a state funded healthcare system. They don't have a free passport to riches because they are doctors. I think its wrong and snotty for the medical profession to act as if they were doing some un-repayable favours to the rest of the population. That is not the spirit of medicine at all. Doctors and hospitals should ALWAYS be non-profit. Anyone who thinks they are going to be rich and untouchable in the profession earns my disgust. :/

"Government has to exert more control because we sure as hell can't, going to the emergency room for bullshit, misusing hospital resources, or going to the doc for every little sniffle."

Very right. The only way to police this is setting limits to what the state will fund and what you need to spend out of your pocket. For this to happen you need a corruption-free health ministry and that is, I am afraid, such an impossibly lofty ideal, I might easily believe I am in heaven when I see it as a reality.

jason writes at 08:41:51 07/29/09 - Comment #50365: Rationing under a government system is a guarantee, not a scare tactic, and the experience of other nations bears that out. There are only X number of health care dollars. We would be going from "rationing" under insurance companies to the same thing, only it's a government starched shirt that is going to tell you no. What happens then? Who are you going to sue? Good luck? I see it as a wash.

In terms of the levels of red tape and bureaucrats, again I see it as a wash. These things are hallmarks of government operations. Have no doubts, you are going to be still dealing with bureaucrats under a government system. There is no "me and my doctor are going to take care of me and nobody is going to get involved in my care decisions" when someone in DC makes decisions about what medicines and procedures are covered. It isn't a holy grail solution.

What is intriguing is the potential for savings. If you take away the profit motive, what does that get you? Where are the savings? What nobody has shown me is how in the USA adopting a single payer plan is going to turn a $32,000 hospital stay into a $20,000 hospital stay. What do you do? I think you have to dictate to doctors and hospitals exactly what they will be earning, which puts them in a tough position. Government has to exert more control because we sure as hell can't, going to the emergency room for bullshit, misusing hospital resources, or going to the doc for every little sniffle.

In any event, I do agree our current system is unsustainable. It breaks my heart for someone to go bankrupt because of catastrophic costs. But the CBO has been clear, the current bill on offer does not save money and in fact drives us deeper off the cliff financially. To Obama's credit, he went back to them and asked "How can we save more money?" but if we can't afford it, we can't afford it.

Speaking of Conyers, why is it that he can say more or less that it's unreasonable to read the god damned bill? They don't want to read it, they don't care what's in it, they just want to rush things through with little thought or debate. They have contempt for the rest of us. If that were Brian Higgins, I would be calling for his head, although you can be sure he's not going to be bothered to read the bill either.

dcoffee writes at 11:38:40 07/28/09 - Comment #50361: Tiny, you said it perfectly "How could you let some third party money making insurance company control whether you get treated for your illness?" so true. Doctors in other countries are free to practice medicine, and do what they think is best for the patient. Here we have a useless middleman trying to squeeze a profit out of someones misery.

I don't understand why employers, doctors or patients should have to worry about an insurance bureaucrat. Health Insurance companies are an artificial economy. A waste of money that we have accepted for years because we had money to waste. Now we just can't afford them.

If Obama was liberal he would at least talk about Single Payer. and he would have opposed that sham environmental legislation instead of trying to posture behind it like it was a victory.

tinypliny writes at 10:13:39 07/28/09 - Comment #50355: India has a universal state funded healthcare system but the government does not want to take any responsibility or even look at the population problem in a sensible way. Even with an efficient healthcare system, we are doomed by apathy.

joshua writes at 10:12:16 07/28/09 - Comment #50354: d:

You've suggested that Obama is barely a liberal - you've finally rendered me speechless.

tinypliny writes at 10:08:11 07/28/09 - Comment #50353: Health is a basic right. I couldn't agree more. The health insurance system here completely baffles me. How could you let some third party money making insurance company control whether you get treated for your illness? How could you do that?

I was shocked when I heard that my university would cover my "health insurance" - everything about that statement was and is still alien to me. Maintaining a healthy population should be a priority for a country of people. Health is the true wealth of any people.

Ever wonder why Japan is dead bottom of that list and still has the healthiest living centenarians?

Permalink: Healthcare_Ramblings.html
Words: 1148

Category: healthcare

07/07/09 07:00 - ID#49219

Healthcare, Action Time

Protest this Thursday.

We won't get a better healthcare system unless we demand it. Some companies are getting filthy rich under the current system, and they don't want anything to change.

We pay more for healthcare than any other country, but all that cash is wasted on CEO bonuses, advertising, and in call-center employees whose job is to deny you care.

I've had enough. I have no healthcare, and no good options. Why? Because I decided to start my own business. But in this society, if you want health insurance you have to work for a big company that is kind enough to provide for you, or I can pay $500 per month (Just in case tragedy strikes, but there's really no guarantee they'll actually pay).

We're the only country that does it this way. And over 70 percent of the public thinks we should have a choice of a public option (#34a

)

But nothing is going to happen, unless we all pitch in a little bit.

Call congress.
Attend the protest this Thursday July 09th, 12 noon, outside Senator Gillibrand's office. 726 Exchange Street, Buffalo, NY 14210

Write down this number, this is toll free access to congress.
1 800-828-0498
Just call, ask for your congress person's office, and they connect you for free.

you might say something like...
"We need a public Healthcare option, I do not trust the Health Insurance Companies to do what's best for the country. We need a more efficient government system to compete with Insurance Companies who make a huge profit every year because they charge more and cover less. We have the most expensive system in the world, but 1 out of 6 Americans has no health insurance, and the burden of paying for it is killing the economy."

Senate: Schumer, and Gillibrand
Congress: Brian Higgins, Louise Slaughter, and Chris Lee

If we can't fix this system now, we've failed as a democracy.

Washington DC really is where good ideas go to die. We focus on elections, then the Rules of DC politics take over, and we get screwed until next election.

If you want to stay up to date on this, sign up at Healthcare for America Now

PS. finally posting, summers are so busy, I miss (e:strip).

Permalink: Healthcare_Action_Time.html
Words: 420

Category: healthcare

06/15/09 11:52 - ID#48981

US Chamber opposes Healthcare

Call Congress 1-800-828-0498

Most of you know that I run my own Web-Design and Photography business, I'm a sole proprietor. This means that I get screwed on Healthcare. I have to pay something like a minimum $500 per month for some crappy high deductible insurance for my wife and myself. that's even the subsidized NYS version.

I'm part of my local Greater South Buffalo Chamber of Commerce, and somehow I ended up receiving 'urgent action' alerts from the US Chamber of Commerce. They sent me one on Saturday... to Debra, I just noticed, boy that was a happy accident for me. Anyway, here's their message

"This week, the Senate HELP Committee released a plan that will radically restructure health care for all Americans. The proposal goes above and beyond covering the uninsured. It threatens the private market and ailing economy.

Unable to compete with a public plan, many private companies would be locked into an unsustainable system and forced out of business. In fact, a report cites 130 million people potentially moving from private insurance to this new public plan.

Now is the time to stand up to Senator Kennedy's plan, which could devastate private health care, and ultimately force you into an entirely government-run plan. Click here to send a letter to Congress now.

Further, this proposal would restrict the way employers provide coverage, hurting flexibility and innovation: the cornerstones of American health care. For more of my thoughts on the danger of this proposal, click here.

The bottom line: Sen. Kennedy's bill is dangerous to your health.

This plan is being forced through at a lightning pace, preventing those who will be impacted from carefully considering the 615-page proposal."

That email takes you to this page

So instead of signing their petition I decided to use their contact form to express my opposition. Here's my message to them.

"I support a public Healthcare option. Why should business have to pay the cost of health insurance for our employees? Why should employees have to demand extra benefits from their employers just to ensure that their families are protected from tragedy? The current Healthcare system is broken. It forces businesses like mine to cut employees, and increase our prices to cover the extra costs. This should not be the burden of private business. The economy would be better off with a simplified system where government takes responsibility for the well being of all citizens.

I oppose your position on this issue. I do not support protecting the Health Insurance companies at the expense of all other businesses and the economy as a whole. This is not a responsible position for the US Chamber of Commerce to take."

If you want to call congress on this issue here's the
Toll Free Number
1 800-828-0498

Senators are:
Kristen Gillibrand
Chuck Schumer

House Representatives are:
Brian Higgins
Louise Slaughter
Chris Lee

Permalink: US_Chamber_opposes_Healthcare.html
Words: 495

Category: healthcare

03/30/09 11:10 - ID#48237

Drug Companies, money for Ads, not R&D

Doing some healthcare research.

Check this one out

Drug Companies spend Twice as much on marketing and advertising than they do on Research and Development, about one third of their revenue.

Source PDF

from Families USA

Just one example of how we are getting ripped off despite the huge summs we are paying for our healthcare.

Drug Companies are the third most profitable industry in America.

Why so much Profit? Instead of creating new drugs, they spend a lot of time tinkering with old drugs just so they can get a new patent and have a monopoly for 20 years on the production of something, then they spend their money marketing some new form of Prozac with a new patent and a different name.

Anyone else get annoyed by the TV commercials out there telling me to "ask my doctor" about such and such wonderpill? I don't feel like I'm qualified to guess what kind of perscription I need, that's why I'm going to the doctor in the first place right? If I know how to handle it, I wouldn't be going to the Doctor. And didn't they spend about 13 years in school learning this stuff?

I always hated those drug commercials, I always felt like they were just increasing my cost and providing nothing of value. Now that I know the actual numbers... This is so much worse than I thought.

jenks writes at 10:07:21 03/30/09 - Comment #47163: i'm totally with you here. I mean yes, the drug companies are businesses and need to earn money. But I think the 'direct to patient' advertising is absolutely wrong.
I mean i'm not against making people aware of new meds.
but that line 'ask your doctor is x pill is right for you" just absolutely rubs me the wrong way.
How about you trust your doctor to know which meds are right??
If anything the drug companies should spend more of their energies educating the doctors who will prescribe the drugs, not the patients. There are a lot of great new drugs out there. But so many docs are set in their ways and scared to try something new- usually b/c they don't know about it. Once in a while I will see someone learn about some new product, and then try it out to see if it lives up to the hype. I think that's how it should go.
I mean the patients need to know- but I think they should hear it from their doc, not from someone with a background in advertising.

While they're at it... the drug companies can stop buying me lunch and giving me free pens. If they do that, maybe they can drop their prices .0000001% or something.

libertad writes at 08:43:43 03/30/09 - Comment #47161: That is interesting data. I'm surprised how much more they spend on advertising than on research. They have banned cigarette advertising so clearly they can ban any kind of advertising they want. I don't see why it is in the public interest this type of advertising.

dcoffee writes at 08:01:23 03/30/09 - Comment #47159: I just don't feel like the Drug Companies should play the role of the 'slick salesmen'. We'd all be better off if the could spend money creating new cures, instead of spending twice as much on marketing. If this drug really is as amazing as they say, wouldn't my doctor know about it? if it could help me personally wouldn't they mention it?

We have the FDA to approve new drugs right? Don't they notify people when something new comes out? There must be a comprehensive list of osteoporosis drugs somewhere, the doctor should be able to look at the list, think about the side-effects and other factors in relation to my body, and pick one. Why should I think the TV commercial knows more than my doctor? If that's the case than my doctor sucks.

Don't get me wrong, I can take care of a lot of things myself (I have to) I don't think you should be helpless without your doctor. But really, that's their job, and they went through over a decade of Med school to get there.

metalpeter writes at 07:44:01 03/30/09 - Comment #47157: The part that is weird about some of ok a lot of the ads is that they Tell you the drug name but don't really say what it is for. Or now the new wave of them is people talking and then they list the side effects in the conversation (legaly they have to list them). I do get why they do the Ads if you are trying to sell a Hard on pill and no one knows about more choices then Viagara you won't get any sales. There is one that I find really strange it is a drug for people who have depression and are taking meds but it doesn't cure everything so this pill is supposed to take care of things in addition to the meds you are allready taking.

joshua writes at 03:52:02 03/30/09 - Comment #47153: Yeah, the ads have always been shady. Then again, if you spend $800M-$1B developing a drug, I have no idea how you recuperate that much money without actually advertising for it. The advertising itself never really has bothered me, but the scale of it has definity been a stone in my shoe for a long time.

Permalink: Drug_Companies_money_for_Ads_not_R_amp_D.html
Words: 259

Category: healthcare

03/12/09 03:20 - ID#48031

Who Wants Healthcare??

Just about everyone is ready for a better healthcare system. And they think the government can do a better job than private companies.

New survey numbers out, this is a poll conducted by Lake Research Partners on behalf of Health Care for America Now

Interesting numbers from the poll:

62% of voters believe a public health insurance plan will spend less on profits and administration and force private insurers to compete Compared with Only 28% of voters believe that a public health insurance plan would be a "big, government bureaucracy".

73% of voters want a choice of a private or public health insurance plan, including 63% of Republicans

61% think a public health insurance plan will be better able to control health care costs by using its purchasing power to drive competition.

66% agree that a public health insurance plan will provide choices including a wide choice of doctors.

Doctors everywhere want a National system too, I think it's just about unanimous

Small Business people are becoming more Democratic too, because of Republican opposition to healthcare. We used to worry about taxes because we pay more taxes than employees. BUT Healthcare is now a much more important issue for small and large businesses alike, and at least one Republican is worried about it. David Frum

WalMart.... also likes a national Healthcare system, so do AT&T, General Mills and a bunch more.

the health insurance companies better start playing catch-up, if they want to keep profiting off of our misery. Seems like the country is ready to try anything.

Politicians better get on board soon, or get thrown out of office. I don't think you can fool us or scare us anymore. People realize that we're smart enough, and resourceful enough as a country to come up with a better system than this. Call it Socialized, or Nationalized or whatever you want, whatever it is, it's better than this.

These guys are my new favorite Pro-Healthcare group

News Junkies, read more pro-healthcare opinion here

Permalink: Who_Wants_Healthcare_.html
Words: 377

Category: healthcare

03/05/09 05:56 - ID#47964

Healthcare, Now ~~~

Hey everyone, my mind has been racing about so many things, I haven't been writing because there's just too much stuff, it would take hours. Business has been picking up for me, that's good, but it means I've been short on hours lately.

Here's some new links:
Physicians for a National Healthcare Plan

.
Businesses are getting behind it too.

National Coalition on Healthcare

New America Foundation

Center For American Progress

Healthcare....

This is so important to me. I'm tired of superficial debate on this life and death problem.

This is a big issue, I don't know where to begin.

Health Insurance Companies are the problem. It's just a sick and twisted way to make money.

What do Health Insurance companies do? They take your money, and they repay you by trying as hard as possible to deny you treatment. Even if you have Health Insurance they're not going to cover everything you need. Got examples anyone? I think we all do.

They NEVER SEE THE PATIENT. but they know what you need? Sure. all they care about is profit, I doubt they care if you die, except that it cuts off the money you payed them when you were living.

What a waste of money. We spend more per person than any other nation on earth, and we have little to show for it. You know why? because it goes to pay assholes with telephones an computers who try as hard as they can to make excuses for refusing to pay for treatment. I like statistics, One third of our healthcare costs goes to this waste

The most amazing argument I hear against universal healthcare is that "patients don't want a government bureaucrat standing between them and their doctor telling them what to do" oh yea? how bout a for profit insurance company bureaucrat in the private sector who's trying to milk you for every dime? We have hardly any choice about our private insurance anymore, it's more like gambling than trying to find a good product. I'd prefer the government, if only for the fact that I get to elect those assholes, and there's a chance they will actually care what I want. Freedom of choice is a joke. A simpler system would save us all a lot of money overall, and give us more choice about the things that matter.

What choices do you want as a patient? Probably all you want, is to choose your doctor, consent to your own treatments, and get professional medical advice when you need it. Insurance companies do none of these things, they just interfere and make life difficult for both doctors and patients.

Sorry Blue Cross Blue Shield, you serve no good purpose. I want single payer national care.

Does anyone really think that health insurance middlemen make our system better? They don't keep costs down, they push them up by their very existence.

I think doctors and scientists are some of the hardest working, most motivated people you will ever meet, and they are the ones closest to the patients, that care honestly about your well being. Is there a doctor out there that thinks health insurance companies are useful? I really doubt it.

I want some kind of "socialized" medicine, I don't know what people are afraid of. We need a simpler more efficient system like Single Payer National Healthcare. It's really in our self interest as individuals and as a nation.

The employer based system is dead. The reason is simple, it's because our companies are no longer the most powerful and profitable in the world. The system started around the time of unions and WWII. Companies realized it would be cheaper to give health benefits than to increase wages so workers could pay healthcare costs themselves. So we pawned off the cost on them for decades. Now, money is tight for most businesses, and international companies are competitive with US companies, the employer based system will not work, get rid of it.

The cost of providing benefits is killing our companies (GM?). The best thing we could do for our economy is take this burden off their backs, the government could provide it far cheaper than our current patchwork system ever could. It's a simple equation, if you insure the biggest pool of people you save money because the risk and the cost are distributed widely. Plus all the paperwork you save by having a sensible system, without all the middlemen trying to make a profit.

Some things the government just does better. Healthcare is one of them. Because they could simply cover everyone.

If you are reading this,
then I know you care, Call your congress people and state reps. You can find out who they are and get their contact info by looking under my 'FavLinks' on the right.

Physicians for a National Health System

Check them out for great info.

PS is any of this controversial? besides the profanity, it seems like common sense. I don't understand how politicians could oppose such a thing.

Permalink: Healthcare_Now_.html
Words: 887

Category: healthcare

05/09/08 12:03 - ID#44279

Rod Watson Kicks Healthcare Ass

In the Buffalo News today, Rod Watson lays the failure of the US healthcare system out there for everyone to see. The commentary is inspired by a local story about a mis-diagnosed 4 year old child on Medicaid who died. The doctor didn't even look at her.

Watson is blunt and to the point, the article is like a 5 minute version of Sicko.

Rod Watson: Don't expect health reform any time soon
By Rod Watson
Updated: 05/08/08

The richest and smartest nation in the world has the dumbest health care system, one that leaves out 47 million people while spending far more than any other nation.

It's a system in which those on Medicaid - like a father who lost his 4-month-old daughter - get shunned or wonder if they're getting substandard treatment.

Yet you won't hear Sens. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain talking about the obvious solution: a national, single-payer system that could preserve private doctors and hospitals, yet stop wasting money on health insurers who give no shots and perform no surgeries.

Full article, check it out, it's a quick read

Rod Watson is my new Buffalo Hero

jenks writes at 09:33:14 05/11/08 - Comment #34938: sorry lib, don't take me the wrong way. I'm not condemning cuba- their health care, from what I know, is quite good.

and- any tips on quitting NRT? My mom has been chewing the gum for, oh, 5 years now. I know it's better than smoking, but I wish she'd quit that, too.

libertad writes at 09:50:11 05/09/08 - Comment #34896: I used to work for the woman that Watson is quoting. "Single-payer is not a panacea. Monroe cautioned that it would have to be structured with the right incentives." I definitely agree with her on this one. Cuba shouldn't really be condemned when it comes to health care. They are doing tremendously well in comparison to other third world countries. If I were to have cancer I would rather be here, but if I didn't have health insurance I would rather be there. There infant mortality is less than ours. This is due to the emphasis on prevention. There prenatal care for everyone beats what the majority would receive here. You should see all the old people in Cuba exercising in big groups. I have never seen that here ever. These are state sponsored classes to keep them active and heatlhy. When it comes to our own socialized medicine, Medicare, they lack in prevention. My work in smoking cessation can be very frustrating. People that only have Medicare and no secondary insurances get no help in quitting smoking. Smoking is the biggest health crisis in the country and world and they won't provide nicotine replacement therapy to their clients. People on Medicare are worse off than those on Medicaid. Some of the quotes that Watson used are complaining about Medicaid and really they get a lot in comparison to those who have there own private insurance, at least when it comes to drug coverage and nicotine replacement. Nicotine replacement is proven to double peoples chances of quitting. You can't imagine how frustrating it is to speak to Medicare patients and tell them "sorry I know you have quit smoking for two weeks using the nicotine replacement we sent you but you are going to have to buy the rest on your own." People need NRT for sometimes up to 12 weeks. This stuff costs $50 for a two week supply. Many of these people just don't have enough to pay for them and return to smoking. You tell them to use the money that they save from not smoking and then they tell you that they bought their "Smokin Joe's" at the reservation for $10 a carton. What are you supposed to tell them? Usually I say "Sorry, if it were up to me I would give it to you." New York State is the only state that I know of that offers free nicotine replacement. Every other state people are having a hard time quitting because a proven, effective and relatively safe product is not within reach of those who need it. I also should say that in Cuba they do not put things in the cigarettes to make them more addictive. My Aunt Anne has Lyme Disease. Her doctor, the only one so far to be able to help her, has rejected insurance companies because they refuse to pay him for treating his patients. These insurance companies are not doctors yet they decide who is going to live and who is going to die. My Aunt is very sick and I wish she didn't have to pay for all of this herself. She has insurance!

james writes at 03:26:34 05/09/08 - Comment #34889: Joshua: you mention the relation between life expectancy and lifestyle. Preventative medicine is covered lots of other countries but unless you are on the most expensive insurance plans here you are not covered.

Additionally, health education in this country is a joke. For example, during the Atkins craze I was in a grocery store. They had roasted chickens for sale with with a big label "Low Carb!". The very fact that a collection of proteins and fat necessitates such a label makes me sick. Why do we pump money into programs telling kids that the drugs they will do in high school are bad when there is no nutrition education? Ultimately, Americans are going to die earlier, require more expensive treatments, and miss more days of work because they don't know that chicken is low in carbs.

Oh my god, I am about to run screaming into the wilderness pulling my hair out.

jenks writes at 03:03:33 05/09/08 - Comment #34888: I agree- for-profit private insurers who care about nothing more than their bottom line are not helping the situation. For example- there's a great machine called a wound vac. It really helps nasty wounds heal. The thing is, it's expensive, so insurance companies often refuse to pay for it once a patient goes home. What they don't seem to realize is that if they say the patient can't have it, it's not like we take it off and give the patient something cheaper. No, we make them stay in the hospital longer to keep getting it. Which is FAR more expensive than just paying for the damn thing. Or there are some oral antibiotics that are VERY expensive. But when you compare that the cost of a PICC line (special IV), plus the cost of having a nurse come to your house twice a day to give medicine, or to simply staying in the hospital a few extra weeks- the pill is way cheaper. But insurance never sees that. it makes me crazy.

My other brilliant solution- make tobacco disappear from the planet. Don't just make it illegal, b/c that opens a whole different can of worms. Make it gone. If I'm not mistaken, tobacco-related illness is the #1 preventable cause of death in the US. Health care expenditures would probably go down 50% if people didn't smoke. There are days where it's so frustrating, I almost think "you don't deserve medical care if you smoke." Obviously that's extreme. But at the same time- the 100K spent to treat a smoker's cardiac disease could treat a LOT of uninsured children, etc. I've heard that some nations are instituting age limits. Like if you're 95 and come in with some horrible condition that CAN be treated, but only with a $100K operation, they say "we're sorry. you're 95. It's not worth it."

sorry... I'm getting all fired up here. I'll stop.

and josh- thanks for the bday wishes. :)

joshua writes at 01:28:04 05/09/08 - Comment #34886: Oh, and it may warm the cockles of your heart to know that this was the same company that flooded the market with 1 billion solid doses of generic Plavex for $4 a pill - Pfizer sued them and tried to get an injunction but it failed because the drugs were already being distributed. =D

joshua writes at 01:25:32 05/09/08 - Comment #34885: Yes that is a good point - its true that a lot of the money that goes into drug production ends up part of the marketing ploy to get the drug on the market. Whether not that is wasteful I can't say one way or another - I'll leave that for people to decide on their own. If a drug works, shouldn't the doctor know about it? Personally I would never be that presumptuous. I don't know if our everyday doctors really pay that much attention so I wouldn't dare comment on that, but I'd guess that the marketing budgets for drugs pale in comparison to what they spent to research and create the drug.

I've actually audited Canadian drug manufacturers - the largest out there, as a matter of fact. You would be absolutely astounded at the amount of resources on hand to do what they do. Just one machine I saw was about the size of a PC tower and it costs $220k per unit... and there were rooms full of them.

joshua writes at 01:18:08 05/09/08 - Comment #34884: DC its interesting you've brought it up, since this is one of my gripes. People often cite birth rates/death rates or similar statistics as a criticism of not having enough health care. In my view thats not a health care problem, that is a lifestyle problem.

The reason why we are less healthy than other countries is fairly obvious to me - we are generally fatter and lazier than our foreign counterparts and live more stressful lifestyles. We largely eat like shit. We are less healthier because we are a fast food nation that thrives on having things quickly and easily at the expense of making choices that would be wiser in the long run.

The thing is, when people say we should be healthier given our status I think they are right. Given our lifestyle what concerns me is that if we create a nationalized system, how is any of it going to fix the problems that make people have to visit the doctor in the first place? As I said earlier the natural consequence of this is what we are seeing in England now, where reputable government and non-governmental people are batting around the idea of rationing the care. The least healthy would actually be exempt from coverage if they had their way. At that point the idea that the prime concern is the health of the country would be ludicrous - it would be about dollars and dollars only.

So why can't we fix the financial problem first? This is why I think some elements of free market capitalism will have to be present in an American system.

dcoffee writes at 01:11:37 05/09/08 - Comment #34883: PS How Much of the cost of Plavex goes to their TV commercials? And how much goes to the free crap they hand out in hospitals all day? is it half their budget? then how much goes to political contributions? I'm just saying... seems like we're paying for a lot of waste here too. if a drug works you use it, and drugs work differently on each person. Why should they tell me to I ask my doctor about __Rx____ if it works, the doctor should know, right?

dcoffee writes at 01:03:05 05/09/08 - Comment #34881: Well i think we can all agree that if we are spending almost double what any other country spends on healthcare per capita, we should be the healthiest. But we're not, by the WHO's ranking in 2000 we're number 37. Now that is an outrage.

Why is it fair for employers to foot the bill for healthcare? How can we compete against Japanese automakers when they are saving all that money that we spend on healthcare?

In America we can learn from other countries mistakes and create our own model. I don't know if our healthcare facilities are the 'best' or not, but the issue is not the facilities it's how we pay for Americans to have access to it.

I don't think we should nationalize hospitals, doctors, or research in general. But having an insurance company serve as a middleman for every procedure is wasteful. We set up HMOs to help keep costs down, didn't happen. How about we minimize waste, minimize the amount of hours people spend on the phone or filling out paperwork to get approval from someone who has never seen the patient, or the hospital.

Medicare works, and older people tend to be more costly to take care of. Why not triple the size of Medicare and cover everyone. I'm not saying I know what the perfect system is, but I see a lot of problems, and a lot of waste. The layer of insurance providers is unnecessary, and I see that as a problem that makes sense to solve through single payer coverage.

joshua writes at 12:57:57 05/09/08 - Comment #34879: (e:jenks) - wasabi girl? I'm sorry I missed your birthday so I'll say it now - happy birthday!

I'm not necessarily against the idea of health care for all - David and I have talked about this for a few months now. Based on the evidence I'm skeptical, and to be fair I think its justified skepticism. We have to find a way to make it work for us. Any politician that wants to mimic Europe will never get my support.

One of my tangentially related concern is medical costs. Insurance is one thing but controlling medical costs is a knot that I don't think can be unraveled. $16 for a dose of Plavex is ludicrous, but isn't the medical industry entitled to recoup the billions they spend on the R&D it took to produce the drug in the first place? What if the drug companies simply tell the government, as they've done with flu vaccines, that they will not produce life saving drugs anymore? Its cynical but that is a very real possibility.

Having the government pay for the Plavex instead of my dad (not that dad takes Plavex) ultimately isn't solving anything. Oh, by the way, in Canada unless you are elderly or on social assistance (also "first nations" folks are included I think), or ironically, if you are an inmate in a federal prison, drug coverage is not part of the package. Prisoners get drug coverage but you would not. When you see any references to "group coverage" in foreign countries that provide socialized medicines they are talking about supplemental health insurance that their company provides. Despite the vast bureaucracy and heavy taxation, individuals and companies are still forced to provide for themselves.

Not enough people read the fine print.

jenks writes at 12:38:09 05/09/08 - Comment #34878: good point josh. Sure I'm biased, but I think the health CARE in this country is pretty excellent. It's the health INSURANCE and ACCESS issues that are the problems.

I mean if you have cancer, do you want to be treated here, or in cuba? Even if cuba does have lower infant mortality rates, etc...

joshua writes at 12:00:41 05/09/08 - Comment #34877: As I've said before, the application of nationalized health care has never worked as advertised. In Britain they are actually talking about rationing it off and denying access to fat people.

By the way, in Canada companies *still* subsidize a large amount of health care that the government does not cover. Having visited dozens of Canadian manufacturers at this point I can tell you from first hand experience how cynical most of the people I've talked to are about their system.

McCain's solution is crap, but we are no closer to national health care then we are with dissolving the military. Really the ONLY opinions I'm interested in at this point are those of the doctors, because they know first hand the merits of such an idea. Some crunchy granola hippie NGO employee sitting at a computer is going to know jack fucking squat in comparison.

The problem is not the health care here, but the access to it. We have the best and most comprehensive medical facilities in the world. The question is, do we want to keep it that way or are we going to dilute our resources, nationalize our system and give everybody health care that was actually worse than it was the year before? The answer is somewhere in the middle.

james writes at 11:15:51 05/09/08 - Comment #34875: ya know, I hear this stuff about long lines for equipment in other countries. But, despite lower infant mortality rates and a longer life expectancy than in the US, that seems to be a problem with healthcare and not health insurance.

What I find fascinating about the national dialogue on health care is that in 2004 if John Kerry mentioned universal health care in the vein of Obama and Clinton, he would have been booed off the stage of his own party's convention. Four years later those concepts are not only apart of the campaigns vocabulary, but the Republican's solutions seem quaint and ridiculously old fashioned. On this issue John McCain seems like the grandfather who's crazy ideas we tolerate because he is old.

carolinian writes at 09:35:18 05/09/08 - Comment #34873: One has to wonder whether unaffordable health care and people having to choose between gettng medical treatment and paying their mortgage has substantially contributed to the current financial crisis. If that's the case, then nationalized heath care probably would have cost less than this crisis is going to cost us.

jenks writes at 03:38:36 05/09/08 - Comment #34871: I will read the article, but a "national single-payer system" is not always all it's cracked up to be. (insert here the usual comments about the 6mo wait for a CT scan in Canada, etc. And my personal experience with Canadian patients coming to Buffalo fairly often if they want anything done in a timely fasion.)

Yes, our healthcare is expensive and wasteful and a mess. I'm not arguing that, and I certainly don't know the answer. I figure if there were a nice simple answer, it would have been implemented years ago. It's not like no one has proposed nationalized health care before...

Permalink: Rod_Watson_Kicks_Healthcare_Ass.html
Words: 202

<-- Earlier Entries