This is such a blatant lie as to be laughable. The default measure of health care quality is to measure life expectancy. We're tied with Cuba. Go USA.
By that line of thinking, Monacco has the best healthcare in the world. Who knew? There are many factors that contribute to life expectancy. Genetics being chief among them, other considerations like diet, vice, violence, automotive accidents, and poor record keeping make that number meaningless. If you really want to get into a measuring contest on the best healthcare in the world, I'd prefer to talk in terms of successful operations, childbirth survival rates, or other more relevent aspects of comparison.
Longtime members of this forum and friends of members of this forum are dead due to raw medical incompetence in this country, including the woman in my signature, who would be alive today had she only had a slightly more attentive doctor mere weeks earlier. Another woman died from a punctured lung...during a knee surgery.
Forcing the poor into ER is flat-out ridiculous. One member had to wait until an infection became an emergency, so she spent five days in ICU because she could not afford antibiotics. Another could not go to the doctor for her headaches. Rather than spend several hundred dollars on preventative care, we're happy to spend a quarter of a million for her to suffer through chemo for years.
Norway solved its MSRA problem. Here it's still a terror.
I'm sorry for your loss, but so far much of the horror stories on this forum are the result of HMOs and other regulations from the body politic, Medicare and Medicaid. None of these tragedies would be averted by the new healthcare law, and there is every reason to believe that more government interference will result in more travesty.
Norway is a wealthy nation with an enviable oil supply. We would be too were it not for the evironmentalists.
And yet for the not so wealthy, 'medical tourism' is about going the other direction. When I lacked insurance, the Mayo was one of the few institutions that would treat me, yes. They wanted $3,000 just for the evaluation. For one of the most routine surgeries in the world. For that, I could fly to Prague, meet some Elliquiy members, get treated, and fly back.
The excellence of the Mayo and Hopkins has less to do with the magic of the talent they hire and more to do with the fact that they have developed better incentives for doctors to actually treat patients.
I don't know what this means.
Insurance companies don't compete for business in many states. Exempt from antitrust laws, they are happy to establish monopolies and engage in blatant price fixing without recourse, while providing said same incompetent bureaucrats in the form of rescission workers.
This is true, and I'm sorry that the healthcare debate isn't centered around this key issue. Nothing would lower the cost of healthcare more than removing the imaginary political boundries between states. More evidence that the government is the root of the problem.
Let me guess, you were shouting 'Death Panels!' right alongside the rest when it was proposed to take care of the main offender of said wasteful spending.
You're damn right I was, and an embarassed president removed end of life counseling from the bill before it was passed.
That's a bridge that will be burned when it happens.
That's never going to happen.
No, when you buy health insurance, you are taking advantage of said provider's ability to dictate prices. The larger the insurer, the more powerful their ability to dictate.
Another sound reason such an important aspect of our life should not be relegated to a single entity.
To say nothing of the fact that, as a self employed person with conditions on my record, it would cost me six thousand dollars a month to buy insurance. And I'd still have to pay for my surgery out of pocket. That isn't free market competition.
Yes it is. Forcing me and two other people to pay for insurance we don't want or need to compensate for your exceptional condition is exactly the opposite of free enterprise.
This is a non sequitur. Two, actually. It neither follows that public employee costs will reduce because of a collapse of private insurers, nor does it follow that reduced employee costs would cause a larger government.
I felt that that was a logical conclusion. With a single payer system, the government need only pay itself to insure its employees. They have a bad track record for that sort of paper shuffling, and ultimately the private sector will support the burden for all recipients of benefits.
The obvious intention of this legislation is to further increase the influence the government has over our lives. As it stands, we just shrug our shoulders about a government shutdown. That won't be the case in our dark future.
"Death panels" was trotted out to giving older people actual end of life care, rather than wasting 60% of our health care spending in making them suffer for six more months. Their lifespan would be increased by a far greater amount if they had better care before 65. It was originally a Republican proposal, but because Obama tried it, that makes it worthy of attack.
This statement is not worthy of a response.
Of course, people such as yourself blatantly overlook the fact that private health insurers essentially are barriers to care in our current system, often denying critically needed treatments.
And yet, the prime cause of bankruptcies in the United States is what?
And how many of them had insurance?
Half a percent of the voting population loses their insurance each year. That sort of bullshit is only going to go on for so long before the fraud gets tossed on its head.
As I've said, standing up to private health insurers is as easy as doing business with someone else. There are many plans to choose from, a good situation that the current adminstration finds intolerable.
Poor health does cause bankruptcies, but not so much from medical bills as loss of income. Many of these bankruptcies are the result of living beyond their means, having no emergency funds for even minor financial setbacks.
Even with insurance, there is some out of pocket expense. Proponents of the bill blatently ignore that that aspect of medical care isn't going to go away. Opponents of the bill strongly believe that situation will become far worse.
There is a fraud that will be tossed on its head, but it is the communist nationalization of one of our nation's largests industries, not the ideals of free markets and personal liberty.
Nonpayers already do place that burden on our system. Go to a medical forum and you will see doctors bitch about how good people who are down on their luck struggle to afford basic care while they have to give effectively free ER care to bums and druggies.
And, of course, the threat of a hypochondria declaration did nearly kill the friend of another member here, who had a life threatening condition, but the hospital could not find it after five visits. If another friend had not stood up for them, your 'finest healthcare in the world' would have left them to die in agony.
Because the hospital would not do a fucking X Ray.
This only supports my arguement.
Of course you don't see it. In common parlance, this is because you are 'drinking the kool-aid'. You have bought bullshit right-wing talking points hook, line, and sinker, and happily regurgitate the bald-faced lies you've been told.
There's that kool-aid thing again, has AMC been rerunning Jonestown late at night?
Negative, bro. Conservatives don't need newswires, support groups, or thinktanks. We automatically know right from wrong.
Eventually, however, reality will assert itself.
Just like it did in Massachusetts under Romneycare, or in Tennessee under Hilarycare. Bankruptcy at the state level. Not enough people in the pool? We're looking at bankruptcy on a national level.
Doctors in general are overworked and underpaid, very little health care money actually goes to them. Most of it goes to overpriced goods (I paid $40 for a piece of gauze and tape, for fuck's sake) and frivolous testing.
You'd be amazed what the army pays for a hammer.
Probably the same way America got to that lead in the first place, and why other nations are catching up to the US while American prestige is falling.
Jim Crow laws?
Nothing. We'll just hire the Indian doctors currently working as New York taxi drivers.
Well, I know some medical professionals -as is- who would give you less time of day -right now- simply because you do those two things. They'd much rather be treating people who just had something horrible happen to them through little to no fault of their own, rather than some ignorant jackass who waltzes into trouble.
On the contrary, they send Christmas cards and provide services as personal favors. I'm not real sure what Hippocrates would have to say on the subject, but it is difficult to date nurses or paramedics, much less go bareback on one.
You don't even know what the market hypothesis is, where it works, or why, and believe our current system of lobbyist infested corporatism is 'free enterprise'. Hint: It isn't free enterprise if lobbyists can insert legal barriers to entry.
Precisely the point I am trying to make. There is already too much regulation. More of the same is going to be disasterous.
Here's a hypothesis for you: The government is one big fuck-up machine.
If you refuse to learn basic terminology, there is no reason to take your arguments seriously.
I can't hear you unless you speak into the conch.