Ten Reasons Why American Health Care Is so Bad

That was not a very nice post, and I cannot see that it added anything to the topic.

I'm merely pointing out that most conservatives are being dishonest when it comes to debating these issues, and they present their very uninformed opinions as facts, without bothering to cite a single thing. They are the one making the claim (UHC is terrible and would lead to terrible things) so the burden of proof is on them.

American health care is the best in the world. America doesn't have a health care provision problem. We have a health care FINANCING problem.

There IS a difference.

And.

It's a big one.

~faith,
Timothy.

Care to explain this? Any of it? If a great many people lack access to the care, then it is a failed system, regardless of how 'good' it may be. Consider how we rank in comparison with other countries, with regards to our quality of life, and where we rank in how much we spend per capita.

Friendly moderator note:
Obviously there are some strong feelings here on both sides, and guess what? I am no exception (news flash there). However, strong feelings do not need to parlay themselves into insults of those on the other side of the fence. This thread was brought to my attention by a member who felt things were starting to get out of hand.

In this thread there will be no attacking, insulting, nor name-calling on either side. We like to keep things nice around here. If you are upset by something someone says here, please report it rather than engage that poster. We will deal with it. If you have to walk away from the computer and count to 1000 before you post, then please do so. It's not worth ruining your good standing to post while angry. I have learned that lesson the hard way myself.

Thanks.

Hmm, I think Timothy hit it on the head. We have to separate the issues. I will agree that the 'Care' can be quite outstanding.

Of course 'outstanding' care is irrelevant if no one can afford it...

This is exactly the point. There has to be a middle ground somewhere, where we can retain the standard of care we do provide, yet actually be able to provide it to people who often need it most. Having the nicest stuff is great, but at the same time, given our rankings worldwide with regard to life expectancy etc, it certainly isn't everything.

and your post did ?

it's a valid point that the people more likely to support their posts with credible references are those arguing that the US system is broken

Breathing New Life Into Health Care

Here is a number easily understood by even the math-phobic: Every 1 percent increase in the unemployment rate leads to another 1.1 million Americans becoming uninsured—and causes still another million more children and adults to become eligible for state health insurance coverage.

This means that over the past 10 months, as the hemorrhage of jobs began to push the national unemployment rate toward its October level of 6.5 percent, about 3 million Americans were thrown off the insurance rolls or had their incomes fall so much that they became eligible for Medicaid or the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. …

...Though the Clinton plan is consistently derided as a failure, in truth, President-elect Barack Obama’s campaign pledge to build a universal system based on the current, employer-based method of delivering insurance is in good measure modeled upon it. And that is the problem….

...Tightening regulation of the insurance industry and creating a new, government-based plan to make coverage available to those who cannot afford to buy it from private insurers—the essence of Obama’s campaign proposal—would only add another layer of complexity and, eventually, cost. Only a single, government-financed system can eliminate the administrative waste, unfairness and economic burden of our current health insurance scheme.

Timidity is no longer an option.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081204_breathing_new_life_into_healthcare/

We also figure statistics differently than do other countries--if you think there is a commonly accepted system you are wrong.

For example, in the US, a premie is going to get everything available to resuscitate, support and heal. If the baby dies, it is a neonatal death.

In many other countries, that is not counted as a neonatal death.

So defining the "goodness" of our system compared to someone else's is not going to happen with any kind of surety.

Watch "Sicko" and then read the reviews and posts of fact checkers. Moore makes some good points, but he is no scientist, he controlled for nothing, he cherry-picked sad cases and made them out to be illustrative of the entire system, and he slanted the reports of health care in other countries to support his contentions (and maybe to sell more movies, who knows).

France is supposed to have the best and most available, and about 6 weeks ago or so, the news broke that their system is bankrupt. You cannot get something for nothing, someone has to pay for it.

If we were as cautious with our healthcare spending as we are with, say buying homes, cars and groceries (well, as some of us are), we could probably see a decrease in health care costs because it would bring some competition to the market.

I can give you a personal example. Less than a year ago, there was an "irregularity" on my mammogram. I was scheduled for a stereo-something or other biopsy, which involved a radiologist, x-rays during the placement of the probe, collection of the tissue at the site via needle biopsy (looked to be an 8 guage!), mammograms before, during and after to be certain the right place had been biopsied, and pathologist's exam of the tissue. My breast surgeon just referred us to where she normally sends her patients.

Thank God they called to let us know what our out of pocket would be! Nearly $5,000! I was more upset about that then I was the possibility that I had breast cancer!

I decided there had to be more than one place to get this done, and through talking with various and sundry people (the most helpful were also the most paranoid--they whispered and didn't want their names attached to the information), I learned of what turned out to be the best place in Dallas. I checked references, read up on the the doc, was very impressed, even before I went to see her.

The out of pocket? just over $1,100. The difference? Gee, I dunno, profit margin?

My point is, we are not savvy consumers. If we have insurance, we don't care, the insurance is paying for it. We go like lemmings wherever we are sent, and we never question about quality, cost, nothing.

It comes back to us (one way or another). We can be responsible fiscally, or we can pay more (and therefore afford less).

For myself, my personal attack on this problem is preparation toward my MSN/FNP. I'm opening a nurse run clinic with another FNP and two RN's. You can bet we will be much less pricey than the MD's down the street, and we won't be sending just anyone for admission to hospital.

I had a patient last week who was admitted for an MRI. She was there three days. We did nothing other than cover her diabetes with insulin and give her pain meds. Nothing. Medicare (aka, you and I) paid for that stay.

Anyway, that's the point I want to make.

And if care is bad, then stand up and say so!!! A bad car dealer, a bad grocer, a bad plumber, soon go out of business. Bad docs and bad hospitals need that same kind of check.

Simple.