"Rationalized Healthcare", Something else we can leave our children.

TRUTIDE · March 5th, 2009, 03:43 PM

The stimulus provides for the creation of a federal health care bureaucracy not unlike Hillarycare. Decisions that should be made by doctors and patients will belong to bureaucrats deciding cost-effectiveness.

Maybe Obama wants to be the Aneurin Bevan of the U.S. Instead of Bevanism, we can have Obamaism. Free healthcare for all...or not.

The truth is that there will never be enough money in the pot to meet every need with the best and latest treatment

Is Canada or Sweden any better?

Canadians have an option Britainers don't: close proximity of American hospitals. In fact, the Canadian government spends over $1 billion each year for Canadians to receive medical treatment in our country. I wonder how much money the U.S. government spends for Americans to be treated in Canada.

"Sweden is the world's socialist wonder." Sven R. Larson tells about some of Sweden's problems in Lessons from Sweden’s Universal Health System:Tales from the Health-care Crypt published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Spring 2008). Mr. D., a Gothenburg multiple sclerosis patient, was prescribed a new drug. His doctor's request was denied because the drug was 33 percent more expensive than the older medicine. Mr. D. offered to pay for the medicine himself but was prevented from doing so. The bureaucrats said it would set a bad precedent and lead to unequal access to medicine.

What is hidden in Obama's plans are the long waits, less quality care and (eventually) the rationing. This is just another move toward socialism that will be hard to take back and our children will suffer the consequences.

CrimsonNan · March 5th, 2009, 04:10 PM

This is the subject being discussed on the local Dominick Brasha (sp) talk show RIGHT NOW !!! Scary !!! I have a bum knee, so I guess I should hurry and have knee replacement surgery before the doctor tells me I'm too old to have it, since I'm already old.

TRUTIDE · March 5th, 2009, 04:42 PM

	Quote:	CrimsonNan
	This is the subject being discussed on the local Dominick Brasha (sp) talk show RIGHT NOW !!! Scary !!! I have a bum knee, so I guess I should hurry and have knee replacement surgery before the doctor tells me I'm too old to have it, since I'm already old.

i just recently had both knees scraped. It will take a few years to completely shut down our current system. It is 20-30 yrs down the road that concerns me.

bayoutider · March 5th, 2009, 04:55 PM

France has something like socialized medicine, Securite Sociale, but it is stepped. Everyone has level one and those with supplemental insurance has level two. That's not what they are called but I am trying to keep it simple. You do not have to have the supplemental insurance but if you do it usually covers all additional costs. What they do require is for workers in the country from another country to provide proof of insurance before they can work in France therefor France doesn't have to foot the bill for the non-French. I'm not saying this is great or not to treat someone who really needs treatment but non treatment of all the illegal aliens would lessen the load on the program.
The French program isn't cheap (around $3500 per person one of the highest in Europe and comes from taxes) but it's cheaper than the US which is running about $6000. Another thing that people worry about is long waits for treatment. I use the program and I spend less time waiting to see a doctor in France than in the US and I spend less time to have a test run. Appointments are measured in hours or days not weeks or months. You can use the physician of your choice and virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation's public health insurance, Securite Sociale.

March 5th, 2009, 05:02 PM

	Quote:	bayoutider
	France has something like socialized medicine, Securite Sociale, but it is stepped. Everyone has level one and those with supplemental insurance has level two...

Is there a real big difference in what's covered in "level one" versus "level two"? Is the difference better/more advanced drugs/technology, or what?

I just continue to hear how Canadians end up coming to the US for treatment that they can't get there.

bayoutider · March 5th, 2009, 05:18 PM

	Quote:	rolltidescott
	Is there a real big difference in what's covered in "level one" versus "level two"? Is the difference better/more advanced drugs/technology, or what? I just continue to hear how Canadians end up coming to the US for treatment that they can't get there.

The stepped system, I'm working from memory here, has more to do with if you are working or not. Those not working don't pay the taxes a working person does and I'm not positive but I imagine they get the same treatment others get but might be charged for some exotic treatment or drugs. Each employer has to pay into the system also, I have to pay a portion for both my employees. Maybe this link can help Link. Our medical system is one thing we can be proud of even on the small island of Martinique there are about 20 hospitals and clinics and the doctor to patient ratio is about 1:600 and there are specialist in about every field. As long as Mt. Pele doesn't erupt again soon I feel pretty good about that.

If America was to look at any kind of government subsidized medicine I would look at the French not the failing Canadian or British systems.

Wife just reminded me why we have supplemental insurance. We did not meet the requirements because we worked outside the country all our lives.

KrAzY3 · March 5th, 2009, 05:56 PM

I'll assume that bayoutider's analysis of the French healthcare system is objective but in either case, from what I understand of socialized medicine that would put the French system in the minority among countries with socialized medicine. My understanding of British, Canadian and Cuban health care for example consists of combinations of long waits, inferior care and often denial of care entirely.

I can speak from firsthand knowledge of socialized health care in Germany. They do have two levels of care, one for everyone and one for people with "private" health insurance. The problem is the private health insurance is available only to certain people (making a certain amount of money) so it's not even a option for most of the population. The care between America and Germany is startling in contrast. Longer waits for appointments, less attentive doctors, inferior testing and precautionary care, less availability of perscription medicine, etc...

The most glaring difference was a contrast between my wife and my mother-in-law living in Germany. My mother-in-law has had cancer multiple times, yet only recently did she have her first MRI. My wife, because of a history of cancer in her family, was given a yearly MRI as a precaution, in America. This is one example but I think it speaks volumes to the difference in care. In Germany, some of the best care and best doctors are only available as "private" doctors which means either you pay entirely out of pocket for their care of you are one of the elite that has private health care. This insures that most of the population has inferior care. In America, getting great health care might be difficult, but for almost anyone willing to prioritize it (over cell phones and cable TV for example) can make it available. That simply isn't a option under most socialized health care systems.

American health care can be better. However, taking away the profits and taking away choice can not possibly make a system better. It's simply not possible to lessen the money coming in and start placing restrictions without having a negative impact on care. That's just common sense.

It's absurd to think our government is going to step in and make health care better. Really? Do you really think Medicare and Medicaid are shining examples of America's best health care? Do you go out of your way to go to government funded health care clinic? If not you'd better hope the government doesn't socialize our health care because that's the type of care we'll all end up having.

RamJamHam · March 5th, 2009, 06:03 PM

I'd like to know whether Bayou's numbers are accurate (not saying they are not) and, if so, how much of the US difference is due to preventive medicine, which is due in large part to the threat of malpractice lawsuits. If that proves to be a significant portion of the number, would the Democrats have the guts to impose lawsuit caps in the face of what is sure to be weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth by the trial lawyers' lobby, a traditional Democratic stronghold? Would we, as consumers of health care services, accept it?

If we get nationalized health care, I would assume one facet of that plan would be the complete elimination of any ability to sue for malpractice, no matter how justified. But, you know what sometimes happens when you assume.

bayoutider · March 5th, 2009, 06:29 PM

	Quote:	KrAzY3
	I'll assume that bayoutider's analysis of the French healthcare system is objective but in either case, from what I understand of socialized medicine that would put the French system in the minority among countries with socialized medicine.

You can start by reading the link I posted in another thread. Another thing you can do is look online (google) for links to French medical and look at what they say. Most all of them are positive and not at all like the Canadian, British, Swedish, German programs which are failing both their government and patients. Read all of what I and others have said before labeling me as objective, I threw out a plan one that is working quite well. I have some medical issues and would not have moved if I felt I would suffer from lack of or lack of quality treatment. I'm just showing people here there is a better way than what Canada has, there is more to the world than Canada.

bayoutider · March 5th, 2009, 06:35 PM

	Quote:	RamJamHam
	I'd like to know whether Bayou's numbers are accurate (not saying they are not) and, if so, how much of the US difference is due to preventive medicine, which is due in large part to the threat of malpractice lawsuits. If that proves to be a significant portion of the number, would the Democrats have the guts to impose lawsuit caps in the face of what is sure to be weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth by the trial lawyers' lobby, a traditional Democratic stronghold? Would we, as consumers of health care services, accept it? If we get nationalized health care, I would assume one facet of that plan would be the complete elimination of any ability to sue for malpractice, no matter how justified. But, you know what sometimes happens when you assume.

There is preventive medicine especially for children and doctors still make house calls for a fee. I can't answer about the malpractice.

TRUTIDE · March 5th, 2009, 07:01 PM

I know that France's healthcare was once highly regarded but my understanding is that the France system has bben having financial and management problems for a few years now. Did'nt they have some 15000 die recently in a heat wave and is'nt there a flu epidemic going on? I check for links later but i know I have seen something on this before.

bayoutider · March 5th, 2009, 07:26 PM

	Quote:	TRUTIDE
	I know that France's healthcare was once highly regarded but my understanding is that the France system has bben having financial and management problems for a few years now. Did'nt they have some 15000 die recently in a heat wave and is'nt there a flu epidemic going on? I check for links later but i know I have seen something on this before.

I don't know about any flu epidemic but the heat wave in 2003 contributed to the death of over 50,000 Europeans given the size of France I would think France lost their share but I don't think medicine has much to do with the climate. 1,300 deaths due to Hurricane Katrina, is that medically related?

Tider@GW_Law · March 5th, 2009, 08:31 PM

If you are in a managed care plan, then your health care is being rationed in one way or another. And if it isn't yet, it will be in due time. And if you're not in a managed care plan, then you will be before long - unless you're making well into the six figures.

The question is: are you more comfortable with an MBA or an MPA deciding which treatments you can and can't have?

The good old days of fee-for-service health care are over, i.e. getting whatever treatments you want without considering the costs.

There is no debate about this.