The United States National Health Insurance Act establishes an American-styled national insurance program.
The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care program that uses the already existing Medicare program by expanding and improving it to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S. territories. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that all Americans, guaranteed by law, will have access to the highest quality and cost effective health care services regardless of ones employment, income, or health care status.
It's not been my friend's experience to get an MRI in a timely manner......scheduled for weeks after the injury. She hobbled onto a plane. But then she's never been one to try to "pull rank" or use her son (besides he lives in another providence) or daughter-in-law for special treatment. She's a wonderful person! Yes, they can very well afford to pay for treatment in the US. I'm sure they do have a policy since they own a very big company that does business here. I'm sure their employees here receive health benefits.
But the impression I'm getting from your posting is that you CAN get a speedy c-t or MRI IF you know the right people. Surely, that's not what you're saying, is it?
The physician son is frustrated. Sometimes speedy care (not saying it's not expert care) is needed for him (as a rehab doctor) to have the best patient out-come.
I did watch a program (60 Minutes? 20/20?) about a man with a brain tumor. Anyone else see it? He couldn't get the imaging done for 2 months! He went to a "broker" who got him into a neurosurgeon in NY. Within a week, he was diagnosed and operated on. It showed he and his wife talking about how to pay for it. I think the outcome is that he's suing the providence (maybe Ontario?) to recover the money. I believe they got a second mortgage.
So, why would there be these "brokers" who find a place in the US for people to receive prompt care, IF the Canadian system is so great?
You can praise the system there all you care to, but I can testify to the veracity of my friends. In many years, I've never heard them exaggerate anything. I'll take their word for it.
The bit about the "meek inheriting the earth" - i.e.. dirt, never would have been, if out healthcare crisis had been anticipated. It could be applied to folks (including doctors) who don't act like squeeky wheels, regarding delay time. Now too many squeeks might create such a cacaphony, that things would be done sooner, just to stop the din. It's the same thing here regarding appeals of denials to insurance companies. I went to a doctor whose staff didn't think they should "bother" the insurance company with mine. I changed doctors, got it appealed, and got the more expensive drug, effexor XR, for my GERD (it's the only one that works).
Most of us like quiet people who don't make a fuss. I'd rather feel better than be liked. By the way, Canadian areas like states, are provinces, not providences (the word for inevitable). Even though the lady you described as so nice, has a son in another province, he probably had med school buddies in Ontario, who could go to bat for her getting a shorter wait time for her MRI.
Yes, it is who you know, and that you ask them for help, that gets you ahead in line (horrors, thats "cutting"). The point here, is that if the MRI would improve the treatment she received, so that she could spend less time on pain meds, wouldn't it be better to "pull rank" by asserting that her acuity requires the definitive diagnosis sooner? Think of it like getting seen in Emergency. Those who are sickest there, get attention sooner than others.......
The question I have, is: Did the MRI taken in the USA stop her hobbling onto planes? Did it get better treatment for her? (I think my tone indicates that I've seen "House" on TV a few times too often - sorry)
The Canadian system is not perfect. However, waiting times for US vs Canadian citizens is essentially the same and the Canadian system delivers better patient outcomes at about half the cost. I would gladly accept a wait if it meant that EVERYONE is able to get timely preventive care and those in REAL need are given care without needing community bakesales to pay for healthcare.
medicare d isn't mandatory. the problem with it, is that pharmaceutical companies dreamed it up, to make more money from suffering patients. only hmos provide meds (most with a co-pay), and cost more than medigaps, which don't. they used the typical sales pitch, saying that if people didn't sign up for their plans, their monthly cost would be higher later, than it would be for the "lucky" others who signed (paid up) immediately. hawgwash! obviously i didn't go for that, and i beg samples from every md i know, as 2 of my meds are each $9./capsule.
correction.
there is a penalty for medicare recepients who did not sign-up in 2006 for coverage....
(i have the pleasure of making 3 way calls to medicare with our homecare patients several x's week to get coverage straightened out).
peace of mind now and in the future
even if you don't take a lot of prescription drugs now, you still should consider joining a drug plan. as we age, most people need prescription drugs to stay healthy. for most people, joining now means you will pay a lower monthly premium in the future since you may have to pay a penalty if you choose to join later. you will have to pay this penalty as long as you have a medicare drug plan. if you reach the point where you have spent $3,850 (in 2007) out-of-pocket for drug costs during the year, the plan will pay most of your remaining drug costs. this protection could start even sooner in some plans.
Please get back to me when you've torn tendons and have a fracture) in your ankle and have to wait a few weeks for definitive studies. Pt. not screaming in agony, minimal swelling, etc. IT HAPPENED WITHIN THE LAST MONTH! Well, she did get on a plane for the US so actually it was treated fairly promptly. It's OK IF it doesn't happen to you and yours.
It happened to me here in the US. I was insured. If I'd gone to the ER instead of my primary gatekeeper I would have been X-rayed that day. Maybe after a painful wait in the ER.
As it happened I had months of painful waiting, thanks to PacifiCare.
It is essential to know the FACTS before one forms an opinion. We must expose ourselves to a variety of sources to truly be informed. One must ask questions about the facts presented..."who is circulating this information?" ; "what is the motivation behind this?"; "who profits by disseminating this information". When you start to examine the news you read and the things you hear with a critical mind only then can you decide. You have the freedom to make a choice just be sure it is an informed choice! Otherwise you are a contributor to the problem of misinformation that has infected our country.
It is essential to know the FACTS before one forms an opinion. We must expose ourselves to a variety of sources to truly be informed. One must ask questions about the facts presented..."who is circulating this information?" ; "what is the motivation behind this?"; "who profits by disseminating this information". When you start to examine the news you read and the things you hear with a critical mind only then can you decide. You have the freedom to make a choice just be sure it is an informed choice! Otherwise you are a contributor to the problem of misinformation that has infected our country.
Thank you for your advise regarding the investigation of information one receives on Allnurses. I agree.
Regrading the questions you posed about single-payer healthcare, here are some answers.
Circulation of information is mostly due to Michael Moore's efforts in his film "Sicko", to let as many people as could possibly be reached, know that other countries fair better than we do, in providing healthcare to their populations, for less money than we currently are charged. I let as many people as I possibly can, know how the single payer program started in Canada, as I was there, have family receiving its benefits, and know they receive timely, effective, appropriate professional care.
My motivation is to have a similar type of payment system in the USA, so the medicines I need will be financially possible for me to buy here, and my way of life, home, car, etc. will not be sacrificed for healthcare.
Those who profit from single-payer, are all recipients of it, which is everyone. However, the profit mongers now reaping millions if not billions personally, from our present lopsided system, will not profit, as CEOs of Insurance companies will no longer make 7-8-9 digit yearly salaries as reputable newspapers and magazines indicate, and pharmaceutical companies will have to bid lower for their products, without using the untrue "we paid for the research, so we should gouge the public" argument. They received adequate government grant money for their research. I know that from having been told by previous employees of those companies about the ways they deceive physicians, government (FDA), and the people in general (I point to the ones passed by the FDA with false assurance, such as HRT, additives that are harmful, and contraindications).
If cholesterol lowering preparations had been adequately researched, the additional benefits of them would have been known sooner.
We need to become far more educated consumers of healthcare as you said, and not depend on anecdotal accounts of miseries experienced by discontent individuals, when all the facts are not known.:barf01:
The Canadian system is not perfect. However, waiting times for US vs Canadian citizens is essentially the same and the Canadian system delivers better patient outcomes at about half the cost. I would gladly accept a wait if it meant that EVERYONE is able to get timely preventive care and those in REAL need are given care without needing community bakesales to pay for healthcare.
It's always good to hear/see your informed opinions that you share with us, HM Viking. Reminding us that constant imperfections occur in any system, providing challenges for new generations of healthcare workers is necessary. The inclusion of patients on the "team" and consulting them about their needs might cover the sense of immediate need some have, to get what they think they're missing from any system.
I'd like to put in a plug for storage of stem cells from umbilical cord blood, in regard to "bakesales". I've seen fundraising efforts like those most, for persons (usually children) who need "bone marrow" stem cell transplants.
This would not be necessary if each child had their own stem cells that could be accessed when/if necessary. Many unfounded arguments have been made regarding the possibility of stem cell death during storage, when in reality, as reported by the sytem cell researchers, for 30 years there is actually 99% survival.
Then came another unfounded claim that most people wouldn't need them, so companies providing the extraction of stem cells and storage facilities would be profiteers, when 1 in 4 persons has cancer in their lifetimes, and many genetic diseases, such as Sickle Cell Anemia are cured by therapy with stem cells, and the symptoms of donor-host disease is eradicated using one's own specimen.
I worked as National Director, Prenatal education for a stem cell storage company, hiring 48 area coordinators throughout the USA, training and supervising them, and making many presentations at hospitals, universities, and Childbirth Education organizations. Many "nay sayers" had to be reassured, and docs wanted fees for collecting the umbilical cord blood, as they sat between the 2nd and 3rd stages of labor waiting for the placenta. To this day, in this country, packs containing sterile equipment must be mailed to paying expectant parents, and they have to mail them through air express companies soon after they get the blood.
In Canada when I presented the program, having hired an Area Coordinator in Toronto, the medical community there quickly accepted the need for personal and donated storage of stem cells, and created their own facilities for that, without charge to the families who can use the stem cells for the mother and baby (100% match); and siblings of the baby (50% match possibility). Fathers of the babies have only a 12.5% chance of matching their child's stem cells.
Financial savings are considerable, which visionary officials can see, but the profiteers from our healthacre system have been very slow to accept what so clearly is the answer to graft vs host disease, and the dirth of matching specimens (which when used for donation cause pain for the donor, sometimes lifelong minimal pain, when it is harvested from their bone).
The above is just one benefit of "single payer" healthcare insurance programs! Administration is very accepting of people and money saving
"gooberment-backed", is not government run! :angryfire
I am sorry... but it is the same thing... backed or run or whatever you want to call... it is still the same lame @$$ TAX TAX TAX and spend moronic politicians that will be spending the money. I think gooberment is more than appropriate as a descriptor.
it is essential to know the facts before one forms an opinion. we must expose ourselves to a variety of sources to truly be informed. one must ask questions about the facts presented..."who is circulating this information?" ; "what is the motivation behind this?"; "who profits by disseminating this information". when you start to examine the news you read and the things you hear with a critical mind only then can you decide. you have the freedom to make a choice just be sure it is an informed choice! otherwise you are a contributor to the problem of misinformation that has infected our country.
yes... that is a completely unbiased source from us to get our "facts" from.
that aside.... lets look at some of the "facts" from that proposed website.
a universal public system would be financed this way: the public financing already funneled to medicare and medicaid would be retained. the difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%).
the site goes on to say that money will be saved because we will not be paying healthcare premiums... how many people trust the government to manage any increase in taxes appropriately. i submit the same thing would happen to this money that has already happened to social security. the coffers would be raided for whatever pet project there is... and taxes would further increase.
there will also be a push by employers to begin paying less so as to offset the 7% payroll tax; less payroll, less tax. on top of that; one has to understand that any increase in the cost of providing a service or product is in turn going to increase the price of said service or product; that is, unless you expect the corporations to just eat profit losses. they will not; i promise you. nor should they.
is national health insurance "socialized medicine"?
no. socialized medicine is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for the government and draw salaries from the government. doctors in the veterans administration and the armed services are paid this way. examples also exist in great britain and spain. but in most european countries, canada, australia and japan they have socialized financing, or socialized health insurance, not socialized medicine.
yes it is... any version of "from each according to his ability; to each according to his need" is a form of socialism whether you want to call it that or not. any time that you take the dollars that i have worked my tail off for and distribute them via programs such as this... in whatever form... it is socialism/communism.
read this...
so-cial-ism /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ pronunciation key - show spelled pronunciation[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] pronunciation key - show ipa pronunciation
-noun 1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3.(in marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles
and
socialism
an economic system in which the production and distribution of [color=#568c1e]goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by [color=#568c1e]private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. there are many varieties of socialism. some socialists tolerate [color=#568c1e]capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. all [color=#568c1e]communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists
why shouldn't we let people buy better health care if they can afford it?
whenever we allow the wealthy to buy better care or jump the queue, health care for the rest of us suffers. one need only look at the example of the nation's health insurance program for the poor, versus the national naval medical center in bethesda, md, that serves members of congress. access to care for the poor is deteriorating because medicaid is a grossly underfunded health care program. because it doesn't serve the wealthy, the payment rates are low and many physicians refuse to see medicaid patients. calls to improve medicaid fall on deaf ears because the beneficiaries are not considered to be politically important. on the other hand, members of congress have completely free access to care at national naval, where the quality of care couldn't be better.
so; even if you work your tail off some more... and are still able to afford whatever healthcare you would like... they say "no".
because it isn't fair... that you have wealth and others do not.
classic socialism and a far slide towards communism. and viking.. please spare me the "progessive" graphic. the left has corrupted the word and polluted the meaning. if you arent for taxing the rich to where they are not rich anymore... then you are not "progressive"
It happened to me here in the US. I was insured. If I'd gone to the ER instead of my primary gatekeeper I would have been X-rayed that day. Maybe after a painful wait in the ER.
As it happened I had months of painful waiting, thanks to PacifiCare.
I am sorry... that seems like that was your choice. I have PacifiCare and have had things that were urgent and went to the ER; paid my co-pay and was on my way... then followed up with my regular doc in about 3-4 days.
i suppose you are actively campaigning against libraries, public waste treatment, police and fire services too? or perhaps we should ask those to pay for service every time they dial 911 and only provide help to those who have cash on hand. health care is absolutely the concern of all on a societal level. the health of the whole affects the health and wellness of the individual. public health is the reason that we immunize our children despite the risks. please review your nursing pledge...to educate and advocate for health and wellness in your community. i don't believe any of us took the oath to advocate only for those who can pay.
reform can be accomplished only when attitudes are changed.....we commit ourselves to any wrong or degradation or injury whenever we do not protest against it.
lilian wald, rn, activist, reformer 1867-1940 the founder of public health
lamazeteacher
2,170 Posts
____________________________________________________________
The bit about the "meek inheriting the earth" - i.e.. dirt, never would have been, if out healthcare crisis had been anticipated. It could be applied to folks (including doctors) who don't act like squeeky wheels, regarding delay time. Now too many squeeks might create such a cacaphony, that things would be done sooner, just to stop the din. It's the same thing here regarding appeals of denials to insurance companies. I went to a doctor whose staff didn't think they should "bother" the insurance company with mine. I changed doctors, got it appealed, and got the more expensive drug, effexor XR, for my GERD (it's the only one that works).
Most of us like quiet people who don't make a fuss. I'd rather feel better than be liked. By the way, Canadian areas like states, are provinces, not providences (the word for inevitable). Even though the lady you described as so nice, has a son in another province, he probably had med school buddies in Ontario, who could go to bat for her getting a shorter wait time for her MRI.
Yes, it is who you know, and that you ask them for help, that gets you ahead in line (horrors, thats "cutting"). The point here, is that if the MRI would improve the treatment she received, so that she could spend less time on pain meds, wouldn't it be better to "pull rank" by asserting that her acuity requires the definitive diagnosis sooner? Think of it like getting seen in Emergency. Those who are sickest there, get attention sooner than others.......
The question I have, is: Did the MRI taken in the USA stop her hobbling onto planes? Did it get better treatment for her? (I think my tone indicates that I've seen "House" on TV a few times too often - sorry)