Why are your political leaders looking after the interest of the insurance companies and big Pharma? You the citizens should be making the decision. After all its affecting you not the elites of the world. They have all the coverage they can buy because they can afford it by simply paying you pittance while they rape your wages.

The general public should be demanding heath care policies that work. Single payer systems are working all over the world; except in America. (land of the corrupt corporations and corrupt political leaders.)

it' s up to you the general public to get rid of the middleman in your health care system. Get rid of the insurance for profit bullshit and use the money saved by eliminating the insurance for profit heath care system to reduce health care costs. In doing so in the end you will have a far better health care system for all not just for the elites....

Real Health Care Reform - Universal Single-Payer

Organizations like Physicians for a National Health Program want Americans to have the same system in place in all other Western countries and elsewhere, including Venezuela, South Korea, Japan, Cuba, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Costa Rica, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand. But not in America - the only industrialized country without it despite spending more than double per capita than the other 30 OECD countries and delivering less for it.

In a September 2007 report to Congress, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) compared 2004 US health care spending with other OECD countries:

-- America then averaged $6,102 per person, well over double the average $2,560 for OECD countries;

-- US health care spending was 15.3% of the economy compared to 8.9% on average for OECD countries; for Canada it was 9.9%; Germany - 10.6%; Great Britain - 8.1%; France - 10.5%; and Japan 8.0%;

-- "US prices for medical care commodities and services are significantly higher than in other countries (delivering comparable care) and serve as a key determinant of higher overall spending;" high insurance and drug costs are the most significant factors;

-- life expectancy in America is lower than in other OECD countries;

-- the US ranks 22nd on life expectancy at birth; post-65, it's 11th for men and 13th for women;

-- America has the third highest infant mortality rate after Turkey and Mexico;

-- heart disease, cancer, and respiratory diseases are the top OECD country causes of death; America ranks 17th for heart disease "despite (performing) substantially more invasive heart procedures than all the other (OECD) countries;"

-- quality of US health care isn't superior overall; nor do Americans "have substantially better access to health care resources, even putting aside the issue of the uninsured;" and

-- because of the cost, many Americans delay or forego treatment.

World Health Organization's (WHO) Ranking of World Health Systems

WHO ranks America 37th overall, behind Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Iceland, Malta, Colombia, Cyprus, Morocco and Costa Rica and about equal to Slovenia and Cuba.

In other measures, it has the US 24th on life expectancy, 72nd on level of health, 32nd in distribution of care, 54 - 55th in financial contribution fairness, 15th in overall goal attainment, and first in per capita amount spent. If Obamacare is adopted, it will drop America lower in world rankings by making its dysfunctional system worse.

In a 2007 Commonwealth Fund study comparing Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the UK and US, America ranks last as in its earlier studies on access, patient safety, efficiency, chronic care management, and equity. Most notable is its absence of universal coverage. Overall, the US ranks poorly on its ability to promote healthy lives through affordable, high quality care. Its for-profit system prevents it.

<link>

It's such a no-brainer. Anyone who has looked at the real-world stats can tell you we pay twice as much as our peer nations for health care, with measurably worth public health stats. Our numbers are miserable in terms of longevity, infant mortality, STD prevalence rates, obesity rates, and so on. And, moreover, healthcare expenses drive countless Americans into bankruptcy. Yet, with all those examples of better-functioning and cheaper systems to choose from, we pretend we have to re-invent the wheel, rather than just implementing a time-tested universal single-payer system. Why? Because there are billions in profits for health insurers, drug companies, doctors, and hospitals at stake. Single-payer systems have proven more effective at controlling health care costs, and that translates into controlling health care profits. Just as in the early 90s, money is coming out of the woodwork to prevent real reform from happening.

so say all the Congressmen and Senators on the dime from big medicine(both Democrat and Republican)...how can you jeopardize the MOST ineffective health care in the civilized world...Senator Gregg yesterday said we want health care reform but we shouldn't rush into something like England and Canada...Senator, 61 years isn't rushing, and England and Canada's Heath Care is rated above ours in every significant catagory.

Having spent a lot of time in both England and Canada...and used medical services in both(medical and dental in England)...what I've experienced and saw...yes I'd take it in a Heartbeat before the care we(my wife and I) now get from Kaiser...for 600 per month a piece.

Arkady:

Our numbers are miserable in terms of longevity, infant mortality, STD prevalence rates, obesity rates, and so on.

Ok.

So what evidence do you have the Single-payer healthcare will change these things?

Every single thing on your list is at LEAST as much a product of culture as it is of healthcare failings (and likely much more so). As an example, we have cheap food, much of it not particularly healthy. Availability of healthcare won't change that, nor will it change how much of it we eat.

The claim on which you base your premise is flawed.

The New York Times describes a key part of the House bill: "Lawmakers of both parties agree on the need to rein in private insurance companies by banning underwriting practices that have prevented millions of Americans from obtaining affordable insurance. Insurers would, for example, have to accept all applicants and could not charge higher premiums because of a person's medical history or current illness".

No more evil "cherry-picking." No more "discrimination against the sick. But that's not insurance. Insurance is the pooling of resources to cover the cost of a possible but by no means certain misfortune befalling a given individual. Government-subsidized coverage for people already sick is welfare. We can debate whether this is good, but let's discuss it honestly. Calling welfare "insurance" muddies thinking.

Such "reform" must increase the demand for medical services. That will lead to higher prices. Obama tells us that reform will lower costs. But how do you control costs while boosting demand?

The reformers make vague promises about covering the increased demand by cutting other costs. We should know by now that such promises aren't worth a wooden nickel. The savings never materialize.

Some of the savings are supposed to come from Medicare. The Times reports "Lawmakers also agree on proposals to squeeze hundreds of billions of dollars out of Medicare by reducing the growth of payments to hospitals and many other health care providers."

With the collapse of the socialist countries, we ought to understand that bureaucrats cannot competently set prices. When they pay too little, costs are covertly shifted to others, or services dry up. When they pay too much, scarce resources are diverted from other important uses and people must go without needed goods. Only markets can assure that people have reasonable access to resources according to each individual's priorities.

Assume Medicare reimbursements are cut. When retirees begin to feel the effects, AARP will scream bloody murder. The elderly vote in large numbers, and their powerful lobbyists will be listened to.

The government will then give up that strategy and turn to what the Reagan administration called "revenue enhancement": higher taxes on the "rich." When that fails, because there aren't enough rich to soak, the politicians will soak the middle class. When that fails, they will turn to more borrowing. The Fed will print more money, and we'll have more inflation. Everyone will be poorer.

From John Stossel "Impossible Promises"

<link>

Most Amurrikans with med insurance don't want you or Judy Feder anywhere near it.

She is the absolute nightmare figure whom "they" trot out whenever "they" need to poison the well.

The ONLY change you can get is:

A-Do absolutely NOTHING about med insurance.

B-Set up a low-benefit VA-type CARE system for anyone who wants it -- for a tax of 8% of income. Include some dental.

C-Watch what happens.

D-Increase the number of docs and nurses.

E-Require docs to spend X time in the public system or be banned from hospitals that ever got tax support.

YOUR first step is to screw with insurance and put Judy in charge.

But you may be right, if I understand you correctly.

Care to clarify?

Shep

But that's really the only thing that will cut costs AND get votes.

It's very simple.

The insurers are smart enough to do what is good for them.

So too the public.

USA has no public care system besides VA. VA works.

THE pols' big problem is that THEY START to fix the INSURERS' system.

Do you have a question?

In fact, it is quite a lot like the Brit system... about which I know a bit, and the Australian system.. about which I know a whole lot.

What am I misunderstanding here?

Shep

If there were just one more socialized healthcare system that cost much less and coincided with much better health care stats, we wouldn't have enough data to make an educated guess. But when you've got at least a dozen wealthy nations with more socialized healthcare that costs much less and coincides with much better health care stats, and you've got no examples of any major country using something like our system to get to reasonable costs and good public health stats, there's more than enough data to make an educated guess. Besides, we've seen examples of countries, like Switzerland, that did move from systems like ours to systems like the rest of Europe's, with good results. I'm not saying that we'll necessarily wind up with French longevity and infant mortality and per capita health expenditures, if we go with a French system. There are cultural factors at work, too. But there's more than enough reason to guess that we'll move significantly in that direction. Since our current system, with its rapidly rising costs, is unsustainable, we need to try something new. Why not go with a time-tested approach, used in one form or another by all our peer nations, rather than attempting to re-invent the wheel?

As for pointing out that we have cheap food, much of which is not particularly healthy: so does Europe. Travel France and Italy, and you'll see plenty of McDonalds. They're not trimmer than us because they couldn't afford to eat enough to be fat. Surely there are cultural factors at work, I'll grant you that. For example, they have shorter work-weeks, more vacations, and fewer two-wage-earner families, all of which lend themselves to more physical activity and more home-cooked meals. Simply instituting a modern health care system like those of Europe will not automatically replicate those cultural factors. But it could help. A national health policy focused on reducing costs would be more likely to spend money reducing obesity through the most cost-effective means (even if that meant tax incentives to workplaces to provide shorter hours and longer vacations), whereas a profit-driven health policy focused on maximizing treatment will not.

I've experienced five different systems, two socialized. I was born and raised in the socialized military system. I saw government-employed doctors at government-run hospitals, and got government-purchased drugs. Then I was under the German system, which is socialized, albeit in much different ways. Then I was uninsured entirely. Then I was govered by an HMO. Then I was covered by a relatively fancy PPO. Of the five, the two socialized systems were, by far, the best.

$1200 per month for a married couple...have an eye exam..."You need stronger lenses I'm afraid."

"Well ,I'm really having trouble with the computer with these glasses."

Oh,we hear that all the time,we can deal with that with these new lenses."

"Can I keep these frames."

No I'm sorry we don't offer those any longer,you can send those to the lense maker and for another $400 they can make special ones for you."

"How long will that take ?"

"3 weeks to a month."

"How can I work with no glasses for a month ?"

"Well pick out new frames,you'll wear your current glasses and we'll have your new ones in a week to 10 days."

"Ok"

Picks out frames,has fitting done,

"These will be better for the computer work ?"

"Oh yes, Ma'am.We do this all the time."

Ring,ring...

"Kaiser,Ma'am your new glasses are in."

Pick them up,not happy at first....

"Oh it takes a few days to get used to them."

Can't SEE the computer when she gets home...calls complains...

"Oh, you have to wear them for a few days,you'll get used to them."

10 days later...can't see the computer,terrible headaches...goes back.

"Oh,you should have gotten our lenses designed for computer users."

"I did."

"No Ma'am you didn't."

Shows receipt...says 'extensive computer use,needs computer settings'

"Oh,they gave you the wrong lenses."

10 days later....worse.

At this point...$692.00 glasses...

"Wear them a few days,you'll get used to them.Your eyes have to get trained."

10 days later...has to put 2 year old glasses back on to work,drive etc.

Finally....

"I can't stand these,take them back and credit my account."

"Oh no,Ma'am....you've exceeded your 30 day warranty."

Suppose this was cancer ?

Husband having issues...unbelevably low B12 levels...Dr who discovers this says..."With these levels you should fall asleep whenever you're under stress."

Husband judges large horse shows,is under stress often...has a business built upon other peoples' hobby...bad economic times,people cut back on hobby spending...very stressful.

They increase B12 shots from every two weeks to every 10 days...to every week...(looking like pin cushion)...wife comes in,finds husband passed out on floor...emails Dr after husband comes too...Dr immediately emails back...

"I'm out of the office for the next 11 days..."

Emails and calls referral physician...asks "Does anyone know WHY he's low on B12 and craves sugar every afternoon ?...only been 3 days...

Suppose this IS cancer ?

BUT, DON"T MESS UP OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM !!!

Medicare/Medicaid are FINANCE systems. Neither provides CARE.

The VA gives CARE.

RIght now, in NYC over 80% of docs refuse MEdicaid patients. Medicare is nearing 40%.

accepted. And there are social sanctions against physicians who refuse them as a matter of policy. Fewer homeless, more aged, more minorities, better social climate? Quien sabe?

Shep