American Health care reform protests

[thetodd]

Getting treatment in a timely manner would come under the heading of "best possible treatment".

Which is why many Canadians come to the United States for treatment in a timely manner instead of having to wait...and wait...and wait.

 

[somone uk]

ok, can i point out that there are not "long waiting list" when the person has a LIFE THREATENING condition, the matter of fact is that is the waiting lists aren't first come first serve
i do think the NHS could do with more specialists i do

anyway if you really don't want to be on the list just go private, still an option

 

[thetodd]

ok, can i point out that there are not "long waiting list" when the person has a LIFE THREATENING condition, the matter of fact is that is the waiting lists aren't first come first serve
i do think the NHS could do with more specialists i do

anyway if you really don't want to be on the list just go private, still an option

On a news program the other day they showed a story about a Canadian man diagnosed with cancer who was told he'd have to wait three months for treatment to begin. He came to the United States to begin chemo immediately.
When it comes to staying on a private plan, that will be possible until the Obama administration drives them out of business. Private insurance won't be able to compete with a public option, especially not with the penalties being proposed for businesses not taking the government plan.

 

[somone uk]

ok, can i point out that there are not "long waiting list" when the person has a LIFE THREATENING condition, the matter of fact is that is the waiting lists aren't first come first serve
i do think the NHS could do with more specialists i do

anyway if you really don't want to be on the list just go private, still an option

On a news program the other day they showed a story about a Canadian man diagnosed with cancer who was told he'd have to wait three months for treatment to begin. He came to the United States to begin chemo immediately.
When it comes to staying on a private plan, that will be possible until the Obama administration drives them out of business. Private insurance won't be able to compete with a public option, especially not with the penalties being proposed for businesses not taking the government plan.

well i don't see it being a good idea at all for businesses to be penalised for it but also you said it's PROPOSED
the nhs in the uk guarantees that you see a cancer specialist within a week of diagnosis and you can pretty much get treatment straight away
if you get rushed to hospital for any reason over here you will get treatment straight away, regardless of condition
but you have to step into a free clinic and look around at the very basic and obsolete level of healthcare that you get there, and the people there can't go anywhere else because they can't afford it

and in the uk there are private healthcare companies that are doing fine simplyhealth(aka HSA), bupa, AXA PPP and amii all fully functioning and in buisness, not to mention that cosmetic surgury would be going to private companies

anyhow if us kept spending 16% gdp but on a majority public then that would be more money would be spent per person, on things that matter such as doctors, nurses and hospitals and less of it would be profit and paying insurers
the numbers speak for themselves America out of all developed nations have a higher infant mortality rate and a lower life expectancy yet they spend more of their gdp on healthcare

 

[thetodd]

[quote="somone uk":nmp44h12]ok, can i point out that there are not "long waiting list" when the person has a LIFE THREATENING condition, the matter of fact is that is the waiting lists aren't first come first serve
i do think the NHS could do with more specialists i do

anyway if you really don't want to be on the list just go private, still an option

On a news program the other day they showed a story about a Canadian man diagnosed with cancer who was told he'd have to wait three months for treatment to begin. He came to the United States to begin chemo immediately.
When it comes to staying on a private plan, that will be possible until the Obama administration drives them out of business. Private insurance won't be able to compete with a public option, especially not with the penalties being proposed for businesses not taking the government plan.

well i don't see it being a good idea at all for businesses to be penalised for it but also you said it's PROPOSED
the nhs in the uk guarantees that you see a cancer specialist within a week of diagnosis and you can pretty much get treatment straight away
if you get rushed to hospital for any reason over here you will get treatment straight away, regardless of condition
but you have to step into a free clinic and look around at the very basic and obsolete level of healthcare that you get there, and the people there can't go anywhere else because they can't afford it

and in the uk there are private healthcare companies that are doing fine simplyhealth(aka HSA), bupa, AXA PPP and amii all fully functioning and in buisness, not to mention that cosmetic surgury would be going to private companies

anyhow if us kept spending 16% gdp but on a majority public then that would be more money would be spent per person, on things that matter such as doctors, nurses and hospitals and less of it would be profit and paying insurers
the numbers speak for themselves America out of all developed nations have a higher infant mortality rate and a lower life expectancy yet they spend more of their gdp on healthcare[/quote:nmp44h12]
The problem I have is that Obama cannot be trusted when it comes to his current statements about people being able to keep their private insurance. Countless times in the not so distant past he stated that he wanted a single payer program. He promised change, but so far has been just as much of a double speaker as any other President we've had, saying one thing at one time and then something totally different at others.
Sure, we'll be able to keep our private insurance...until it no longer exists after being elimated by the public option and all the extra taxes businesses will have to pay for not using it. Yes, these penalties are just proposed as of now, but they provide a clear picture of the Obama administrations true intent, which is a completely socialized health care system. There will be health care ratioining under such a plan, too. I see no way around it. We need health care reform in the United States, but not the radical overhaul that Obama is going for.

 

[Optimistic]

Yeah, I know this was published in 2008, but it's interesting to note how "free" healthcare has contributed to the health of the nation . . . . . . .

For the first time in more than 100 years, British living standards have risen above those of Americans, a report has declared.

Increasing incomes, longer holidays and "free" healthcare have all contributed to making Britons better off than our friends across the Atlantic, according to the respected Oxford Economics consultancy.

The feel-rich factor is calculated using the gross domestic product (GDP) per citizen - an indicator of average incomes - which in Britain will be £23,500 this year, compared with £23,250 in America, it predicts.

Although this is partly due to the current strength of the pound against the dollar, it is also because of the UK economy's record run of growth and rising incomes going back to the early 1990s. And while Americans typically have only two weeks' holiday per year, Britons enjoy between four and six weeks as standard.

But the average Briton does not actually feel more wealthy than his or her American counterpart. Goods and services are cheaper in the U.S., meaning that even if they are earning less, they can afford to buy more.

However, Britain also beats France and Germany in the living standards league, with our GDP per capita more than eight per cent higher, Oxford Economics says.

Its managing director Adrian Cooper said: "The last 15 years have seen a dramatic change in the UK's economic performance and its position in the world economy.

"No longer are we the 'sick man of Europe'. Not only have we left Germany and France in our wake, our calculations reveal that UK living standards are now outstripping those of the U.S."

The improving position comes because of the unprecedented growth spurt Britain has enjoyed since the recession of the early 1990s.

Back then, British GDP per capita was 34 per cent lower than in the U.S., 33 per cent lower than in Germany and 26 per cent lower than in France, according to Oxford Economics.

Since then the financial services boom and soaring house prices have led to an uninterrupted expansion. By contrast, the U.S. and many European countries slid into recession in the early part of this decade.

The UK's strength also reflects recent gains against the U.S. dollar, which has the effect of boosting the value of our economic output.

But Mr Cooper said: "The UK has been catching up steadily with living standards in the U.S. since 2001, so it is a well-established trend rather than simply the result of currency fluctuations."

Americans have long complained that their incomes are stagnated.

Some economists there claim that in real terms the average male full-time salary is no higher now than it was in the 1970s.

However, the UK's success comes as fuel prices are soaring and many families face a period of belt-tightening.

Analysts at Citigroup predict the slowest rise in consumer spending this year since 1992.

Its economist Michael Saunders said: "The UK economy now faces a hangover, with slowing credit growth, falling property prices and tightening lending standards."

From: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0b6xYb9PO

 

[cuebald]

Good thing about the NHS is it doesn't matter who you are, you can just show up, get treated and go home.
I broke my arm in a fall aged 16 (as a College student), showed up to Hospital, had an operation and went home, no trouble.
Had physiotherapy, painkillers, and a follow-up operation all gratis, didn't have to pay a penny.

In the USA I'd have been on my arse. (or still paying back massive fees)

 

[somone uk]

There will be health care ratioining

there is healthcare rationing in America, they are called free clinics
socialised healthcare will LESSEN rationing because
45 million Americans have no healthcare 35 million Americans live in poverty yet 80% of American wealth is owned by the richest 10% of Americans maybe let these 45 million have their right to decent healthcare rather than having to ration off the scraps off the end of the table

most the opposition is typical American "omg communism"
Even though the M.A.D warfare is over with most communist states
i just want to say bringing free healthcare will NOT bring Stalin back to life or reintroduce the gulags

though typically the American healthcare system is worse fuctioning and less cost effective if obama sets aside 10% of the us GDP on socilised healthcare then the conditions will inevitbly IMPOROVE
if you think no i ask you to walk into a free clinic and you should see that the people who really need the improvement and the people who will see the improvements most of all

also don't forget that socialised healthcare will help the poor more than the middle class or the higher ups.

 

[somone uk]

But the average Briton does not actually feel more wealthy than his or her American counterpart. Goods and services are cheaper in the U.S., meaning that even if they are earning less, they can afford to buy more.

i find this interesting, the majority of this is a matter of price discrimination, i know Australia has it pretty bad with xbox games, so most of that is simply due to economic racism

 

[docj077]

Healthcare in America shouldn't be a free service provided without something in return from the people that use or misuse it.

Here's what I'd do:

1. Free healthcare up until either the age of 18 or until you graduate from an institution of higher learning; college, masters, doctorate, md, etc.

2. Improved educational requirements for those in elementary through high school including more in-depth (and required) discussions in human physiology, anatomy, biology, and personal hygiene with special emphasis on identifying personal illness and proper usage of healthcare systems.

3. Required End-of-Life planning for each American citizen, which can be renewed with personal recommendations placed upon the person's drivers license or personal form of identification during each renewal period. This is to be filled out during a physician visit.

4. Required physician visits at least every 5 years in for those considered in a good state of health or annually if you have a chronic medical problem in order to stay enrolled in a national healthcare system.

5. Patient's must abide by physician recommendations for chronic medical problems, which will be based upon national guidelines. Failure to do so will result in the patient having to pay more into the government run system in the form of higher taxes.

6. Those who enroll in government and healthcare-linked exercise programs or facilities with monitored attendance and weight-loss/weight maintenance will have the amount they pay into the national program lessened in the form of tax rebates.

7. Increased emphasis on extended families to alleviate the amount of money that goes into funding our nations nursing homes.

8. Reduced emphasis on prolonged in-hospital care for those multiple chronic medical problems and an increase in palliative efforts.


I probably have about a thousand of these...

 

[CCS]

What about the option to opt out of the system?

And as for extended families, many people don't get along with their in laws. Also some people don't like their parents. I agree nursing homes is not the answer.

I just want disaster insurance in case I'm hit by a car or struck by lightning. I'm very good at taking care of myself and doing preventative stuff. I check my blood pressure at the grocery store for free. I don't want to be enslaved and have to pay for other people's health problems when they don't take care of themselves. Too many fat people, alcoholics, and smokers in this country.

 

[CCS]

If national health care is so good, why do you have to force people to take it? Why don't you let the democrats pay into a separate system of Democrat health care, and let the rest of us go about our own business? When you force people into a system, you are just like 1970's Russia, which would not let people leave the country. When people are fighting to escape, that should tell you something is wrong with the system.


Can any of you people explain to me why you have to force everyone to do national health care, and why you can't just do your own system that is separate from my tax dollars?

 

[HughJass]

If national health care is so good, why do you have to force people to take it? Why don't you let the democrats pay into a separate system of Democrat health care, and let the rest of us go about our own business? When you force people into a system, you are just like 1970's Russia

minus the totalitaranism, unelectable representation, the psikhushkas, gulags and thought police.

look at all the countries that have universal health (99% of the developed world) there are no mass rallies calling for public health care to be dismantled. It's valued as an important part of society, most just think it's a tax worth paying.

Can any of you people explain to me why you have to force everyone to do national health care, and why you can't just do your own system that is separate from my tax dollars?

Perhaps an opt out system would be feasible if health care wasn't so expensive, maybe discriminating people who have disease of affluence would be a way of getting the cost down. Hard to completely blame those folk though seeing as the government is mostly responsible for the obesity epidemic etc

 

[Bryan]

CCS, have you seen Michael Moore's terrific film Sicko? I strongly recommend that you see it. It builds a powerful case for universal healthcare!

 

[CCS]

Perhaps an opt out system would be feasible if health care wasn't so expensive,

Why don't you let me decide what is too expensive for me? You just have your government healthcare, and discriminate or don't discriminate if you want. But why do I have to be taxed and forced into something I don't want? If you want national healthcare, go for it. But don't use my tax dollars. Just tax the people who want it, and put the money in a separate account from the general fund.

 

[HughJass]

Perhaps an opt out system would be feasible if health care wasn't so expensive,

Why don't you let me decide what is too expensive for me? You just have your government healthcare, and discriminate or don't discriminate if you want. But why do I have to be taxed and forced into something I don't want? If you want national healthcare, go for it. But don't use my tax dollars. Just tax the people who want it, and put the money in a separate account from the general fund.

would you still feel the same way if you found yourself unemployed or underemployed or just on a very low wage and suddenly got hit with massive hospital bills which left you having to remortgage your home or lose it altogether?

 

[Old Baldy]

I have no idea what is in the 2,000 page plans from the House and Senate because everything is done in secrecy.

I do know that Congrss has exempted themselves from these bills. And the trial lawyers have apparently dodged any tort reform. Sounds like serious corruption to me.

 

[Old Baldy]

Perhaps an opt out system would be feasible if health care wasn't so expensive,

Why don't you let me decide what is too expensive for me? You just have your government healthcare, and discriminate or don't discriminate if you want. But why do I have to be taxed and forced into something I don't want? If you want national healthcare, go for it. But don't use my tax dollars. Just tax the people who want it, and put the money in a separate account from the general fund.

would you still feel the same way if you found yourself unemployed or underemployed or just on a very low wage and suddenly got hit with massive hospital bills which left you having to remortgage your home or lose it altogether?

Nobody wants that Aussie, it's all about the costs. Medical care is so expensive!!!

Sure I wish ALL medical care was FREE and available to EVERYONE. Ok, now how in the heck do we do it? I don't know because I have no idea what is in those large pending bills in Congress and, like I said above, why is Congress exempted and why is tort reform left out?

You know, maybe we're looking at the wrong people to solve this? Maybe we should look to botanists to develop a tree that grows money?

 

[The Gardener]

Sounds like serious corruption to me.

That seems to be what our governmental processes have been distilling into lately. The bottom is about to drop out from under our little Paraguay on the Potomac, and the pigs at the trough are becoming ever more shameless about fighting over the last scraps.

 

[Optimistic]

Perhaps an opt out system would be feasible if health care wasn't so expensive,

Why don't you let me decide what is too expensive for me? You just have your government healthcare, and discriminate or don't discriminate if you want. But why do I have to be taxed and forced into something I don't want? If you want national healthcare, go for it. But don't use my tax dollars. Just tax the people who want it, and put the money in a separate account from the general fund.

Well, you could apply that philosophy to everything that our tax goes towards funding. I don't want my tax money going towards bombing Iraq, or paying for other people's kids in the form of universal child benefit.

Universal healthcare is for the common good and treats people according to need and not the size of their wallet. The US is way behind.