OK, group, those of you who've been acquainted with me over the years know I believe in communication above all. I believe John has a right to express his opinion. If I sound crankier than usual, it's because I am. This debate is one of the most important we can have in this country right now, so I'm a little more blunt than usual. My apologies if I offend anyone.
John wrote: > I'll be glib here and object to "universal". What I think you really > mean is "all US citizens", or perhaps "all US citizens and non-citizen > residents". But see my question here about why we are not more > concerned about helping those much worse off than most Americans. Glib? Are you sure you're not trolling? I agree with what Chris has to say about the US spreading allopathic western medicine around the world post WWII and thereby causing a population explosion that we now have to deal with. That aside, the topic *I'M* discussing is health care in the US. > I think these sorts of details should be up to each consumer to decide > upon. And I wonder how much of a believer you would become should you, your partner, you children, your parents, etc. be suddenly injured or struck with a long-term/life threatening illness later today. You can make all those 'sound economic decisions' you want to, and it won't stop Ifni from pointing a capricious finger in your direction. What is it, something like half of all personal bankruptcies are due to medical problems? > No offense intended, but I have seen that attitude by many people who > work as health-care providers. But I think the needs and desires of > health care providers are quite different from those who must bear the > costs of that health care. Certainly it is easier to work in a > hospital if you do not have to worry about the costs and benefits of > each test or procedure, but that is not the way for those who bear the > costs to get the most value for their money. Well, some offense taken. Just what are the 'needs and desires' of health care workers? The patients I took care of in a large Canadian hospital were not as sick when they entered the hospital as those in a large American city that I took care of around the same time. They had access to doctors earlier in their illness. It's easier to work in a hospital when those in your care have a better chance of getting well than those who your work your tail off to save, get out of the hospital and have them back the next week because they couldn't get the help they needed in the interim. Andy what makes you think that health care workers don't bear the cost of their own health care too? I suppose you could refuse health care in Canada, that's you right. I think it would be nutty, but probably doable. But if you don't think health care in this country is rationed, you are mistaken. No we don't have to wait for an MRI, *if you have insurance and can afford it*. If you can't, you have to go to one of the clinics that accept 'indigents' (or in some parts of Oregon, even Medicare patients) and wait, and wait and wait. So how many people in the US have to wait? I just tried to get into physical therapy for vertigo on Tuesday, and they want me to wait a week to see a therapist. We raised two kids in Canada with all the troubles and trials having little kids brings (in two different Provinces, BTW), and never experienced what your 'expert' quotes. Also, am I to understand that you will refuse Medicare when you turn 65, or Social Security? > Do you have any idea about the breakdown of the workload by those > people on Medicare/Medicaid vs. private insurance? Also, do you think > their work is mostly pointless, or did their work (together with the > insurance rules) help to keep costs down? In other words, if not for > their work (and insurance rules), would there have been many more > tests and procedures performed that had a low benefit to cost ratio? No, I don't have a clear understanding of what they did in the billing department, just as you seem to not understand what nurses were trained to do. My point was that since they had one primary insurance to bill, and only a few secondary insurances, it took far fewer bureaucrats to get the job done. And at the time, Canada was providing insurance to all it's people for something like 8.2% of GDP while were were spending over 11% of GDP for our health care. Now I understand that the US is somewhere around 18% of GDP. I don't want to take the time to look up Canadian stats, but I'm about 99% sure it's not more that 18% of GDP. > Compassion and government are strange bedfellows. I'd prefer to > express my compassion without government. Good luck with that. You are part of the government. Amities, Jo Anne Cranky Crone of the Willamette evens...@hevanet.com _______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
