Bush Disaster #316: Lack of Intelligence and Morality in Dealing with Healthcare for Children

[BaliBabyDoc]

yahoo

March 8 (Bloomberg) -- Five-year-old Melanie Romero went to kindergarten in Virginia three months ago with a fractured wrist after taking a tumble down her aunt's stairs. Her mother didn't have medical insurance or $300 for the doctor.

The school nurse called a group that matches poor kids with a government insurance program. That day, Melanie was signed up, saw a doctor and got splints on her arm. Her mother paid $2.

The broader issue is that having regular access to a pediatrician means this kid will get annual preventive services that will reduce her risk for developing disease. She becomes a healthy, productive member of society . . . and stays out of the ER.

``If we use Schip as essentially the engine to pull us toward a point where everyone is covered by the federal government, we don't see that as in the interest of the American people or of taxpayers,'' Michael Leavitt, secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, said at a congressional hearing last month.

The $5 billion-a-year child-health program, a small slice of the government's $700 billion health budget, has become a proxy for a national debate about how best to provide health-care coverage to those without it.

So adding a drug benefit to Medicare makes sense b/c . . . oh yeah, old people vote and drug companies support campaigns.

That was the situation of Melanie Romero's mother Anis Cruz, who cleans offices for a living and declined to say how much she makes. Cruz said she lost her Medicaid coverage late last year because one month she made about $200 more than the income limit. This would put her gross earnings at slightly more than $1,900 monthly. Out of that she pays for food and rent and the small toys Melanie played with during a recent visit to McDonald's, the hurt wrist now a memory.

So what she really needs is a tax deduction so she can buy an $8000 a year family insurance plan? No wait, that would be nearly 4 months income. :roll:

So what she really needs is a tax deduction so she can buy a $4000 a year high-deductible insurance plan? No wait, she didn't take her kid to the doctor b/c she didn't have $300. :frown:

The Bush administration said it wants everyone in America to have access to affordable care. It just doesn't want the government to provide it.

So we can bring democracy to Iraq *cough*. We can buy drugs for Warren Buffet. But the notion of providing basic health care to American children is a bad idea if it's a government program?

Bushistas hate the fact that some states have expanded the SCHIP to cover lower middle income households (and adults). But that's basically a case of the states experimenting with ways to solve a clear societal need . . . universal health coverage. There is no free market solution b/c the goal of the free market is to extract maximum profit NOT provide services. Insurance companies love family plans covering kids and young adults b/c they use little care compared to middle age and elderly adults. Private insurers would hate to have this 'market' go away. Now for the millions of kids with chronic health conditions (asthma, diabetes, mental health), private insurers can't drop them fast enough.

It's a shame members of the Bush administration lack the intelligence and basic human decency to see their 'policy' position makes neither economic nor moral sense.

I wonder why Mike Leavitt seems so enamored with the insurance and pharmaceutical industries

According to a 2003 financial disclosure report filed in 2003, Michael Leavitt has investment holdings in various pharmaceutical companies ? including Johnson & Johnson and Merck & Co. ? and medical equipment makers.
---
What is of more concern is not just Leavitt's investment worth $5 million to $25 million in Leavitt Group Enterprises ? the 27th largest insurance broker in the U.S., where he used to serve as chief operating officer ? but his continued personal relationship to "the family business."

 

[First]

I agree with the sentiment, as does anyone halfway sane, that Leavitt has a conflict of interest (I remember reading about this a whole ago, but let's just say for argument's sake that he really does own those stocks, especially at that value). Even with ethical issue at hand, I don't see how you can say that the Bush administration wanting non-gov't sponsored health-care is "lacking in intelligence and basic human decency". Look, it's been proven more or less throughout U.S. history that gov't-run institutions that offer large and complex services to populaces are usually either mediocre or, in most cases, sub-standard. Countless examples including but not limited to AmTrac and LAUSD. The very nature of gov't-run programs takes out essential ingredients of basic ideas of progress and improvement. You see this administration policy as playing to corporate/insurance company interests, when in reality there is very sound logic behind the idea of open market competition, and not just domestically but globally.

Canada is a prime example of what I'm talking about. Everyone is covered under gov't-sponsored universal health-care, it's law. Problem is that it's crappy, very crappy, as in only very basic coverage. In many cases you have situations where people have to wait 6 months just for an MRI and far far longer than that if they want any organs (much worse than the U.S.).

Additionally, I take issue with your $8000 family plan figure; you can routinely find plans for a one third to half that cost if you are in reasonably good health. Not bottom-of-the-barrel plans either but PPOs.

 

[ericlp]

yep... I can't wait for the end of bushes term so we can tally up all the crap he did. I think bush is pretty lazy and useless so... It will be pretty easy to undo all crap in the past 8 years....

Should be interesting. I see bushes future in court half his life explaining his actions and intension's. He might actually get convicted that is if he doesn't play the ragan card... "I don't recall!!!" hahaha

 

[First]

Again, it goes back to (though obviously nowhere near as extreme) as overly government-controlled institutions essentially akin to socialism. Where everyone is equal, but no one is actually better off. i.e. Gov't-run health-care where everyone gets equal coverage, but everyone's overall coverage is worse off.

Though, I do agree and completely understand the need for very, very basic gov't-run health-care. It can absolutely never, ever take the place of competitive insurance companies, though I'm not sure that's what you're implying.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Where in the Constitution does it permit the Federal Government to run health care?


It is amazing how much compassion you have, wait a minute not its not, your typical of the moonbats, your compassion for giving away OTHER peoples money knows no bounds.


I doubt very seriously your charitable contributions come close to the majority of those who consider themselves conservative.


When government inteferes with health care the costs sky rocket. I work for a self insured company. Our costs keep going up because of government mandates. Not because we as employees want more services but because the government has decided to interfere and declare what is covered and what isn't.

Health care was a whole lot cheaper in the 70s until the government started trying to regulate it. Why do you think businesses sprung up for health care? It got too complex for people to handle themselves.


Want it worse? Just wait till you see universal heath insurance, you won't have nearly the freedom you do now nor the level of service unless you just very wealthy and can pay for it. Why will most people suffer? Because businesses will ditch insurance if the government takes it over and when the government takes it over it will be so full of red tape a lot of practicioners will refuse to see you.

Welcome to the hell that Canada has... I know it well, family friends consistently cross the border to the US for treatment they can't get on a timely basis up there. (or, if your lucky they will refuse treatment because of your age)

 

[Jhhnn]

Where in the Constitution does it permit the Federal Government to run health care?

In the Preamble-

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Promote the general welfare...

Of course care is better in the US, for those who can afford it. We spend a lot more per capita and also in relation to GDP than our Canadian cousins. So if you're covered, it's really good, and if not, you're screwed. As more and more people fall into the not covered category, impetus for UHC only increases, and Bushco efforts don't address that, they merely seek to make healthcare cheaper for people who can already afford it... Standard rightwing deception.

We are the only first world nation that fails to provide for all of our citizens in this respect.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Where in the Constitution does it permit the Federal Government to run health care?

In the Preamble-

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Promote the general welfare...

Of course care is better in the US, for those who can afford it. We spend a lot more per capita and also in relation to GDP than our Canadian cousins. So if you're covered, it's really good, and if not, you're screwed. As more and more people fall into the not covered category, impetus for UHC only increases, and Bushco efforts don't address that, they merely seek to make healthcare cheaper for people who can already afford it... Standard rightwing deception.

We are the only first world nation that fails to provide for all of our citizens in this respect.

Promote does not equal provide.

btw I am sure there are a plethora of charities who could have helped this situation out.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeh, right, Genx87. "Promote" does not rule out "provide", either...

Charity? Yeh, conservatives always cite charity, but the truth is that charity can't, won't, and never has covered the situation in its entirety. Nice Try, though...

 

[sandorski]

It ain't broke

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

As usual, an interesting and thought-provoking post by BBD.

I think that to the extent the next President and Congress are able to enact something like single-payer health care, it will be largely because the costs of insurance are increasingly becoming crippling to small business. I'd like to see that happen.

In terms of the constitutional authority for a federally-mandated single-payer health care plan, IMO this would clearly fall under the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3).

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
yahoo

March 8 (Bloomberg) -- Five-year-old Melanie Romero went to kindergarten in Virginia three months ago with a fractured wrist after taking a tumble down her aunt's stairs. Her mother didn't have medical insurance or $300 for the doctor.

The school nurse called a group that matches poor kids with a government insurance program. That day, Melanie was signed up, saw a doctor and got splints on her arm. Her mother paid $2.

The broader issue is that having regular access to a pediatrician means this kid will get annual preventive services that will reduce her risk for developing disease. She becomes a healthy, productive member of society . . . and stays out of the ER.

``If we use Schip as essentially the engine to pull us toward a point where everyone is covered by the federal government, we don't see that as in the interest of the American people or of taxpayers,'' Michael Leavitt, secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, said at a congressional hearing last month.

The $5 billion-a-year child-health program, a small slice of the government's $700 billion health budget, has become a proxy for a national debate about how best to provide health-care coverage to those without it.

So adding a drug benefit to Medicare makes sense b/c . . . oh yeah, old people vote and drug companies support campaigns.

That was the situation of Melanie Romero's mother Anis Cruz, who cleans offices for a living and declined to say how much she makes. Cruz said she lost her Medicaid coverage late last year because one month she made about $200 more than the income limit. This would put her gross earnings at slightly more than $1,900 monthly. Out of that she pays for food and rent and the small toys Melanie played with during a recent visit to McDonald's, the hurt wrist now a memory.

So what she really needs is a tax deduction so she can buy an $8000 a year family insurance plan? No wait, that would be nearly 4 months income. :roll:

So what she really needs is a tax deduction so she can buy a $4000 a year high-deductible insurance plan? No wait, she didn't take her kid to the doctor b/c she didn't have $300. :frown:

The Bush administration said it wants everyone in America to have access to affordable care. It just doesn't want the government to provide it.

So we can bring democracy to Iraq *cough*. We can buy drugs for Warren Buffet. But the notion of providing basic health care to American children is a bad idea if it's a government program?

Bushistas hate the fact that some states have expanded the SCHIP to cover lower middle income households (and adults). But that's basically a case of the states experimenting with ways to solve a clear societal need . . . universal health coverage. There is no free market solution b/c the goal of the free market is to extract maximum profit NOT provide services. Insurance companies love family plans covering kids and young adults b/c they use little care compared to middle age and elderly adults. Private insurers would hate to have this 'market' go away. Now for the millions of kids with chronic health conditions (asthma, diabetes, mental health), private insurers can't drop them fast enough.

It's a shame members of the Bush administration lack the intelligence and basic human decency to see their 'policy' position makes neither economic nor moral sense.

I wonder why Mike Leavitt seems so enamored with the insurance and pharmaceutical industries

According to a 2003 financial disclosure report filed in 2003, Michael Leavitt has investment holdings in various pharmaceutical companies ? including Johnson & Johnson and Merck & Co. ? and medical equipment makers.
---
What is of more concern is not just Leavitt's investment worth $5 million to $25 million in Leavitt Group Enterprises ? the 27th largest insurance broker in the U.S., where he used to serve as chief operating officer ? but his continued personal relationship to "the family business."

This whole subject is way outadyed...these type of problems were happenning way back in the 1960`s.......

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
I agree with the sentiment, as does anyone halfway sane, that Leavitt has a conflict of interest (I remember reading about this a whole ago, but let's just say for argument's sake that he really does own those stocks, especially at that value). Even with ethical issue at hand, I don't see how you can say that the Bush administration wanting non-gov't sponsored health-care is "lacking in intelligence and basic human decency". Look, it's been proven more or less throughout U.S. history that gov't-run institutions that offer large and complex services to populaces are usually either mediocre or, in most cases, sub-standard. Countless examples including but not limited to AmTrac and LAUSD. The very nature of gov't-run programs takes out essential ingredients of basic ideas of progress and improvement. You see this administration policy as playing to corporate/insurance company interests, when in reality there is very sound logic behind the idea of open market competition, and not just domestically but globally.

Canada is a prime example of what I'm talking about. Everyone is covered under gov't-sponsored universal health-care, it's law. Problem is that it's crappy, very crappy, as in only very basic coverage. In many cases you have situations where people have to wait 6 months just for an MRI and far far longer than that if they want any organs (much worse than the U.S.).

Additionally, I take issue with your $8000 family plan figure; you can routinely find plans for a one third to half that cost if you are in reasonably good health. Not bottom-of-the-barrel plans either but PPOs.

You my friend are wrong.......
Sure you can find plansd alot less but the catch is there is a $5000 deductible....so whats the sense...

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: ericlp
yep... I can't wait for the end of bushes term so we can tally up all the crap he did. I think bush is pretty lazy and useless so... It will be pretty easy to undo all crap in the past 8 years....

Should be interesting. I see bushes future in court half his life explaining his actions and intension's. He might actually get convicted that is if he doesn't play the ragan card... "I don't recall!!!" hahaha

This is not Bush issue...again these sort of things were happenning way back in the 1960`s......on up to today..

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yeh, right, Genx87. "Promote" does not rule out "provide", either...

Charity? Yeh, conservatives always cite charity, but the truth is that charity can't, won't, and never has covered the situation in its entirety. Nice Try, though...

Sure it doesnt rule it out, I am pointing out that it doesnt require the govt to provide it.
Charity worked fine back before govt got involved in healthcare.
There were lots of charity hospitals around the country that provided care for free to the poor.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yeh, right, Genx87. "Promote" does not rule out "provide", either...

Charity? Yeh, conservatives always cite charity, but the truth is that charity can't, won't, and never has covered the situation in its entirety. Nice Try, though...

Sure it doesnt rule it out, I am pointing out that it doesnt require the govt to provide it.
Charity worked fine back before govt got involved in healthcare.
There were lots of charity hospitals around the country that provided care for free to the poor.

Yeah, AFTER the doctors and hospitals take everything you own then you can get free healthcare. That's one reason I'm against so illegals aliens, they send there money back to Mexico and then just get whatever health care they need. A legal resident hyas things they can legally take away.

 

[Aisengard]

A safety net kind of government-provided health insurance is a Good Thing. It'll suck, but it'll make sure that a child won't get sick and die because their families couldn't afford $300. Or that the families won't forgo something like, you know, food or rent to pay the hospital bill. I don't really see any downsides, except for the fact that conservatives think everyone should make their own way, even 5-year old children.

It really is a disgrace that children in our supposedly great country can actually go without proper health care because of lack of insurance. Howard Dean had the right idea. It's interesting, he was right about a lot of things. Wonder how much better things would be if the mediots didn't focus on "The Scream."

 

[2Xtreme21]

I just wonder how many 5 year olds we woulda been able to provide for if our government wasn't so concerned about giving away american tax dollars to corporations and to fund wars of lies.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Again, it goes back to (though obviously nowhere near as extreme) as overly government-controlled institutions essentially akin to socialism. Where everyone is equal, but no one is actually better off. i.e. Gov't-run health-care where everyone gets equal coverage, but everyone's overall coverage is worse off.

Though, I do agree and completely understand the need for very, very basic gov't-run health-care. It can absolutely never, ever take the place of competitive insurance companies, though I'm not sure that's what you're implying.

1) The American healthcare system is misnamed. It is in fact a medical care distribution system. Accordingly, VAST amounts of resources go into servicing the overhead and profit of entities that provide minimal benefits to US citizens. This is WASTE of epic proportions . . . unless of course you are a shareholder in one of these companies or they pay your salary.

2) Government run healthcare does NOT equal government-insured healthcare. SCHIP actually has relatively few mandates about care. It merely guarantees that actual SERVICE providers (MDs, hospitals, allied health professionals) get compensated for providing care. In the case of children, most of that care is preventive.

3) I wouldn't want the 'government' to run basic health care b/c there's currently no entity to do it. It doesn't make sense to CREATE a government entity to do it. But there is a government entity that provides health insurance for the elderly (Medicare) and poor (Medicaid). Both have their warts but the primary problem is that they insure the care of old people (often sick) and poor people (often sick) and the chronically ill (self-explanatory). To the contrary, SCHIP currently covers 6 million kids (and over 600k adults) for something in the neighborhood of $5 billion a year. Expanding it to cover twice that number would virtually eradicate the public health disaster of uninsured kids.

4) As much as Bushistas complain about low-income adults enrolled in SCHIP. The Bush administration granted the waivers to enroll them. Why? Written into SCHIP authorization is the encouragement of states to explore ways to expand coverage. Unfortunately, Bushistas (and Congress) aren't that smart. So the formula for funding actually provides LESS money as states cover more kids that were previously uninsured. In essence, the better job a state does at covering uninsured kids, the less the government helps . . . even though it was typically the federal help that made the reforms possible.

5) You cannot fix this kind of problem without universal coverage. Although physicians bear some of the blame, the larger issue is the absence of basic health coverage for kids. It also explains why the US is one of the worst countries for kids. It's not just healthcare b/c Britain also sux but Canada does quite well.

6) The general juxtaposition of say Canada's system to the US is often perpetrated by people with merely a superficial understanding of both. If you NEED a CT scan today for a closed head injury, you will get it in Vancouver just as quickly as it will happen in Chicago. Full-body MRI? Yeah you are going to wait a while in Canada b/c Canadians aren't stupid enough to underwrite an entire cottage industry in nonessential radiology. Canada needs fewer cardiothoracic surgeons per capita b/c they aren't piling up obesity (or heart disease) statistics like the US. Overall, there are far more resources in the US b/c the government (and individuals) have funded an infrastructure of excess. If you happen to be a fat, sedentary adult with emerging cardiovascular disease (and/or diabetes), you are going to die an early death. If you live in Canada, you will get some decent health maintenance care but may not see a lot of extraordinary procedures. If you live in the US, you will have access to extraordinary resources (if you have private insurance or Medicaid). Granted, if you USE those extraordinary resources your private insurer will drop your coverage.

 

[dyna]

OP, What point are you trying to make? That children should not be denied healthcare or Bush is a loser?

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Canada is a prime example of what I'm talking about. Everyone is covered under gov't-sponsored universal health-care, it's law. Problem is that it's crappy, very crappy, as in only very basic coverage. In many cases you have situations where people have to wait 6 months just for an MRI and far far longer than that if they want any organs (much worse than the U.S.).

The only thing one can say to ignorant ideologues like you is results matter. Not just Canada but pretty much every normal country provides the same or better care at a significantly lower cost to its population. The American system is a pathetic failure that survives only because people like you have deemed the way in which it works to be more important than the results it produces. And that's fine, just don't try to back up your ideology with lies...

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Canada is a prime example of what I'm talking about. Everyone is covered under gov't-sponsored universal health-care, it's law. Problem is that it's crappy, very crappy, as in only very basic coverage. In many cases you have situations where people have to wait 6 months just for an MRI and far far longer than that if they want any organs (much worse than the U.S.).

The only thing one can say to ignorant ideologues like you is results matter. Not just Canada but pretty much every normal country provides the same or better care at a significantly lower cost to its population. The American system is a pathetic failure that survives only because people like you have deemed the way in which it works to be more important than the results it produces. And that's fine, just don't try to back up your ideology with lies...

American healthcare isn't that bad, its just expensive.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: dyna

OP, What point are you trying to make? That children should not be denied healthcare or Bush is a loser?

The latter is a given.

The former isn't exactly how I would phrase it but let's look at the facts. The Congress FINALLY created a program SCHIP that's a true partnership between the feds and states. The states are encouraged to be creative but few expected SCHIP to work as well as it has. The original goal of 5 million kids was based on mid90s uninsured rates. There are even MORE kids at-risk today b/c of the general attrition in employer-sponsored coverage and the low-life states (often with GOP governors) that tightened the criteria for Medicaid.

So SCHIP is effective. It doesn't cost very much. And the providers with the most informed perspective (pediatricians) really like the program. That's because unlike other medical associations (AMA in particular), the American Academy of Pediatrics is concerned more about the kids/families we care for than how much money can be made from prescribing newer drugs or doing more procedures.

Yet Bushistas are not only antagonistic to expanding SCHIP, they don't even want to provide enough funds to maintain CURRENT enrollment.

As a clinician that treats ONLY children . . . yeah, I'm a little pissed. Twelve million kids in lower to lower middle income families could get yearly health coverage for what we are likely to spend each month in Iraq of Bush's 'surge.' It's befuddling how immense sums of money ($400B and counting) can be poured down a pit while asking for a sliver of that amount for American kids is affront b/c @rseholes like Leavitt haven't figured out how to make money off it.

American MEDICAL care is among the best in the world, if you have coverage. But American medical care is NOT exceptionally good. A good doctor is not a function of technology. S/he is a function of skill gained through a quality education, years of experience, better than average intelligence, and sufficient communication skills to not only understand what the typical patient is telling you . . . but also the ability to effectively communicate to a patient what you want THEM to do.

MRI is a test you do AFTER you have a good idea of what you are looking for. You don't do the test and then say, "what am I looking for?"

A great example of how it goes awry is the issue over helical CT scans as a screen for lung cancer in former smokers. The government is spending over $120 million dollars to see if it helps to get annual (or biennial) CT scans to catch cancer earlier hopefully at a stage at which treatment would be more effective. Studies to date have gone both ways but the general impression is negative and the most recent large study was negative . . . it doesn't help. Regardless of the outcome of the NIH study, people with good insurance (and disposable income) will insist on helical CTs. They will get them b/c any time there's a willing buyer and a willing provider (radiologic clinics) . . . it's good to go in America. But at $300 to $800 a pop across tens of millions ex-smokers . . . you do the math. It won't happen in Canada.

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: dyna

OP, What point are you trying to make? That children should not be denied healthcare or Bush is a loser?

The latter is a given.

The former isn't exactly how I would phrase it but let's look at the facts. The Congress FINALLY created a program SCHIP that's a true partnership between the feds and states. The states are encouraged to be creative but few expected SCHIP to work as well as it has. The original goal of 5 million kids was based on mid90s uninsured rates. There are even MORE kids at-risk today b/c of the general attrition in employer-sponsored coverage and the low-life states (often with GOP governors) that tightened the criteria for Medicaid.

So SCHIP is effective. It doesn't cost very much. And the providers with the most informed perspective (pediatricians) really like the program. That's because unlike other medical associations (AMA in particular), the American Academy of Pediatrics is concerned more about the kids/families we care for than how much money can be made from prescribing newer drugs or doing more procedures.

Yet Bushistas are not only antagonistic to expanding SCHIP, they don't even want to provide enough funds to maintain CURRENT enrollment.

As a clinician that treats ONLY children . . . yeah, I'm a little pissed. Twelve million kids in lower to lower middle income families could get yearly health coverage for what we are likely to spend each month in Iraq of Bush's 'surge.' It's befuddling how immense sums of money ($400B and counting) can be poured down a pit while asking for a sliver of that amount for American kids is affront b/c @rseholes like Leavitt haven't figured out how to make money off it.

I had to deal with the healthcare system recently and I'm not sure who to blame but it was unbelievably expensive. I have insurance and that is expensive also. Imho, the healthcare companies have jacked up the prices because of the government sponsered programs and that wonderful price structure trickles down to the common man/child. Could it be that because the government picks up the bill, the provider will charge more? Because they know the government will pay it? I don't know. I wish the government would normalize the price of the care and lower it significantly for children and maybe the current funding would cover all the children. I am a believer in paying your debts, so I think the parents of the children should pay something for their childrens care? Maybe out of their social security benefits or whatever. But it shouldn't be a free lunch and children should never suffer.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The most signficant expansion in health care inflation occurred after the passage of Medicare. Correlation . . . yes. Causation . . . worthy of discussion, my bias is to say yes. Any time you've got more money, an expansion in services typically follows. But it's not quite that simple.

 

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Canada is a prime example of what I'm talking about. Everyone is covered under gov't-sponsored universal health-care, it's law. Problem is that it's crappy, very crappy, as in only very basic coverage. In many cases you have situations where people have to wait 6 months just for an MRI and far far longer than that if they want any organs (much worse than the U.S.).

The only thing one can say to ignorant ideologues like you is results matter. Not just Canada but pretty much every normal country provides the same or better care at a significantly lower cost to its population. The American system is a pathetic failure that survives only because people like you have deemed the way in which it works to be more important than the results it produces. And that's fine, just don't try to back up your ideology with lies...

American healthcare isn't that bad, its just expensive.

Another thing wrong with American healthcare is that it takes so damn long to get equipment and new drugs to patients (drugs are going to take long no matter what) but say for lasik, canada is about 2 years ahead because they can get the lasers to the Dr's faster.

I'm against any kind of universal healthcare (any at all for people here illegally) Basic services like emergency services should be billed to the customer, but in the event a customer can not pay, there should be a discount rate and possible gov help given. BUT the gov should not just hand out money, you should have to prove your situation needs the funding.

In the case of illegal aliens, no, hospitals loose billions of dollars because of illegals, they have no way of being reimbursed that money, Mexico sure as hell will not pay anything (green card and work visa are different story here).

If the gov takes over healthcare then companies like the one i work for would be mandated and pricing more controlled than market price putting companies at the gov's will.

Over all, i think that basic services should be helped with if you prove your situation is dire, but bottom line, i am responsible from my healthcare not the gov, and that is how i will always look at it.