portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

social services

So this is who we want in charge of healtcare?

You can't open that park, you can't do that, can't go there, can't go to your memorial, we're not gonna open the Grand Canyon. And these people are running health care? Is that really what we want, people willing to cherry-pick day to day what's gonna be open and what isn't, based on their desire to inconvenience people or harm them. And they are the ones that are gonna run health care? Is that really what we want?
Seriously?

I know a lot people here really want a government solution, but are these the people we want running it?

Is Britain's Health-Care System Really That Bad? 05.Oct.2013 09:53

blues

/ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Time.com — Aug. 18, 2009 — Is Britain's Health-Care System Really That Bad?
 http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1916570,00.html

What is the NHS?

The NHS is a rare example of truly socialized medicine. Health care is provided by a single payer — the British government — and is funded by the taxpayer. All appointments and treatments are free to the patient (though paid for through taxes), as are almost all prescription drugs. The maximum cost of receiving any drug prescribed by the NHS is $12.
(Read "The Year in Medicine 2008: From A to Z.")

How was it formed?

The NHS officially came into being in July 1948, in the wake of World War II, to replace an inadequate system of volunteer hospitals that had, during the war, come to rely on government funding. Doctors and conservative politicians vehemently opposed the NHS in the run-up to its formation, using many of the arguments that opponents of greater government involvement in the U.S. cite today. According to Geoffrey Rivett, author of From Cradle to Grave — The First 60 Years of the NHS, the then head of doctor's body the British Medical Association (BMA), Charles Hill, gave a radio address in 1948 in which he asked, "Do you really want the state to be your doctor?" Today, the BMA is a champion of the NHS and resists any privatization initiatives. In a statement on Aug. 14, BMA chairman Dr. Hamish Meldrum said, "The NHS is not perfect. But the market-style philosophy of the U.S. is a lesson we could do well without."

How does NHS health care compare with U.S. health care?

Like most developed countries, Britain ranks above the U.S. in most health measurements. Its citizens have a longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality, and the country has more acute-care hospital beds per capita and fewer deaths related to surgical or medical mishaps. Britain achieves these results while spending proportionally less on health care than the U.S. — about $2,500 per person in Britain, compared with $6,000 in the U.S. For these reasons, the World Health Organization (WHO) ranked Britain 18th in a global league table of health-care systems (the U.S. was ranked 37th). However, there are measures by which the U.S. outperforms Britain: for instance, the U.S. has lower cancer mortality rates.
\____________________

In Britain, you can just choose a doctor, and simply get care. You can change doctors any time.

Then How about Israel's health-care system?

/ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
The Philadelphia Jewish Voice — November 2009 — Socialized Medicine in Israel (Why I Loved Visiting My Doctor in Jerusalem) — Rabbi Reba Carmel
 http://www.pjvoice.com/v49/49000israel.aspx

Health care provides an instructive example. Israel's health care system is fully subsidized by the government; it is socialized medicine. There are three HMOs, each of which offers a 'basket of benefits,' which are fairly comparable. The differences between the three are often administrative - such as location of doctors or ease of getting appointments. Each HMO assesses a monthly fee for coverage of every Israeli citizen; the fee increases as the member ages. One can purchase additional benefits within each plan - such as alternative care, occupational therapy benefits and so on.

In addition to the monthly fee, every Israeli employee is assessed a health tax which is determined by income level. A person earning a higher salary is assessed a higher health tax which is separate and apart from the income tax assessed. On the whole it is fairly costly. But - and here is the biggest but - every Israeli citizen has at least basic health insurance. Every Israeli citizen has access to a physician and a hospital when needed. Society bears the cost of insuring its members.
\____________________

These folks don't seem to be very worried about the government either.

Look Ma, no insurance company!

Who Should handle National Health Care? 05.Oct.2013 10:19

Tracy Mapes

So? ...

Who should be in Charge of Health Care?

In my Thinking? ... The U.S. Military should be charge with the Responsibility of a permanent National option for Health Care.

Before the cries of preposterous, lets first realize that Obama Care never passed the Tests of Law to be Implemented in the first place.

The first vote was passed with Absentee Seats in the Legislature, as Republicans will recall there was an Absent Seat which became known at the time as the 41st Vote. Which would have precluded the passing of Obama Care.

The Law was then challenged all the way to the Supreme Court in which in a 5/4 Split Decision, it was decided that Obama Care was legal because the Government was within its Rights to Impose Tax upon the Citizenry of the United States.

Unfortunately? ...Congress, the Senate, nor Obama represented the Bill as a Tax to the People, and neither the House or the Senate pass the Bill with the need 2/3rds Majority to Impose a Tax upon the People.

With the Supreme Court making the ultimate decision to Impose that Tax upon the People, and still being a Government Entity, with a Split Decision Vote that still did not meet the Required Vote Ratio of a Government Entity being allowed to Impose a Tax upon the People, the Law should never have been implemented.

--------------

As for my Ideas of shifting Health Care to the Responsibility of the U.S. Military. This thinking is a reaction to the necessity for the implementation of a National Health Care System that eliminates the excesses of Profit motivated Private Entities in the Protection of the Entire U.S. Population. At this point it becomes a National Security issue when Private Industries Interests over-ride the Importance of a Healthy Nation.

By Utilizing the U.S. Military budget and Personnel to create a Stable, Reliable source of Public Health Care, we can eliminate the Profit Motive, and Provide the Military with a Peace Time Mission that is of maximum beneficiaility to the People it was designed to Protect.

This would mean the Building of New National Hospitals around the Country that would provide professional Health Care with Military precision. The Veteran's Administration would not be the Model for this Service. The Care of All People, Citizen and Soldier alike would handled at the same Facilities. Experimental Human Research and Money wasting programs would not be allowed to detour the primary mission of the delivery of Quality Health Care.

The Hierarchy of the Military Structure is the Perfect Model in the implementation of such a System. I'm not talking about Soldiers with M-16's slung to their shoulders, but Men and Women dressed in Navy Whites or similar uniforms performing their duties with Service and Professionalism being their primary Mission.

----------------------------

People who could afford Private Health Care would be able to freely enjoy that heath care which can be provided by private industry. But, Every American would also be able to enjoy the safety and reassurance that there was always a place for safe health care, held to the highest standards, and provided by the U.S. Military.

These Ideas also tie in with my ideas about the shifting of the U.S. Military's Mission towards a Medical Mission Military. In this Role, the U.S. Military would become more of a World Peace Organization that fights Wars with a new set of Rules of engagement that encourage Peace through Mutual Prosperity and the opening of economic inroads for American Businesses to engage the World in Economic Trade.

This means providing Free Health Care Missions into foreign nations with the Idea of build trust bonds that will ensure that warfare is always a last resort. To give the ideas of Recruitment and the meaning of Service and Public Service real meaning.

To combine system of Public expenditure, for the greatest positive outcome, not only in the Protection of Our American Public, but the assurance of the Greatest Initiative toward World Peace and National Security at the Least Cost to the American Tax Payer.

This is also meant to engage the American Soldier in meaningful, positive environments in which they are Proud to write home to their Parents or Loved Ones about the beneficially Importance of their Mission. Not only to Show that America doesn't always have to show up with a Gun, but that they can Travel the World opening the doors of economic Prosperity, Cooperation, Diplomacy and Leadership.

Take Care,

-Tracy Mapes

Considering the alternatives, yes 05.Oct.2013 12:17

Clyde

Nobody here, of all places, is going to argue that the government is highly efficient or really looking out for the best interests of the people.

but, when you weigh the options, and look to other countries with government-run health care as a model and as a testament to the feasibility of the idea, it seems to be much better than the current option, which basically only allows people with money to benefit from our great health care in this country.

I'm not fan of the government, but I think health care is one of the areas that they should be involved in. Infrastructure, health care, and education are all places where government should certainly be involved, as they are the things that are otherwise out of reach of the poor.

Healthcare as a for-profit service or commodity is a terrible idea. We are a shining example of that.

Foreign governments and US Military 05.Oct.2013 17:46

hb

I have lived under both systems. Germany in 1992-1993 and the Marine Corps 1979 to 1982. I found both medical/heath care systems to be less than desirable. Which is why I am no longer in either. Instead of me prejudicing you, please ask any of your friends who have lived under one or the other or both and ask them why they are no longer living under those systems, or if they are still, and which they liked better. I would love to hear the answers.

not military, but 05.Oct.2013 17:57

Clyde

I have several friends who live in Canada, and I visit there fairly frequently. The topic of medical care has come up a few times, usually in the context of "A friend of ours in the states is $60k in debt due to hospital bills", which is usually met with disbelief, and then replies of "Are you fucking kidding me?"

People with universal health care think we are insane for doing things the way we do them here.

You are probably insured, hb. You said you were in the Corps, so you probably also have VA backing you up, should you need it. Are you currently uninsured? Do you have any idea what it is like to sit and worry about an illness you have, to have to fret over seeking medical care because you might not be able to afford your rent or bills should you decide to actually get treatment?

It's a shitty way to live. And it is entirely avoidable, as is clearly demonstrated by the majority of the rest of the first world.

It isn't some oppressive, top down regime of death panels and bureaucrats with clipboards and quotas, despite the bizarre libertarian talking points you seem to have digested.

So Far So Good 05.Oct.2013 17:58

Dude

Some Health care is better than none.

If you have a very limited income it pretty good.
Best to be lucky and not get sick. Be a bit proactive
for your care and have good health habits.

It beets the hell out of the current $1K I am paying now a month.
That sucks you dry fast.

The Republicans(rich and the self hating poor) F-ed the dog on this.

The program should go further than a Health insurance bail out.
Without bailout Health care was going to collapse.

Perhaps government money's should stop feeding the churches,
but that another story.

Clyde 05.Oct.2013 18:46

hb

I do have health coverage. it costs, as does anything worth having. name something that doesn't cost that is worth having?
During the times in my life when I have not had money (being paid $2.30 an hour when I started out), I made sure I bought some sort of minimal health insurance. Something with a $10K deductible. That way if I got in car wreck, I wouldn't be ruined financially. It was pretty cheap, because you paid for everything up front of $10K. I've had some shit jobs over the years. Cutting firewood for sale back in the 1981-1983 recession. Furniture mover for a year, short order cook two years, Security Guard two years, Roofer one year, and a few other jobs to make a few bucks. it wasn't until I decided to educate myself and pick a field that paid well did I crawl out of that minimum wage shit job cycle.

Most people don't realize it but prior to last week, any heath insurance you bought was a program set up and approved by Congress. Ted Kennedy set up modern health care back in the late 1960s. The system they have now (Obamacare) is so fucked up that is bound to collapse under its own weight, which i believe was the plan all along. if you think the rich are going to end up with the same health coverage/care you have you are kidding yourselves. Even in Europe the rich end up paying for private insurance and get the fuck out of there if its a major operation. Guess where they go, and it ain't Cuba.. Had Chavez came to the US for treatment, instead of trying to prove a political point, he might be alive today.

good grief 05.Oct.2013 22:59

Joe Anybody

hb
your comment about Chavez is so ignorant ...in fact lets just drop the whole point... and not derail this post

Joe 06.Oct.2013 08:01

hb

remove the propaganda from Michael Moore's Sicko about Cuba for a moment. Cuba has a decent health care system for a third world country, but that is about all they have going for them, that and Cigars which even the Communists haven't be able to fuck up.

I'm sure Cuba has the best health care possible for Castro, as his longevity proves. Even when you factor it our inner city gunshot deaths, Cuba comes in below the USA for life expectancy. Take the violence out of the equation for both countries and Cuba isn't even close. My only point was when the rich elite have major live threatening heath issues they fly to the US as fast as they can, if they can (meaning dictators who aren't welcome)

I'll bet you that when Michael Moore's morbid obesity catches up to his heart, it won't be Havana he will be flying to for a quadruple bypass.

that is fine 06.Oct.2013 13:45

Clyde

"Even in Europe the rich end up paying for private insurance and get the fuck out of there if its a major operation. "

That's great, and good for them, but it also isn't the point of what we are discussing. THose people are fine. They don't need help.

The people we are talking about, the poor, are out there drifting without a safety net. A government run option is good for them. I'm not saying it is perfect. I'm just saying that there is a huge portion of the population that doesn't find solace in the whole "pull yourself up by your bootstraps and just get a better job so you're rich" mentality that libertarians seem to think is somehow accessible to everyone. Because it isn't.

I'm glad you were able to find better economic security. But just because you were able to, doesn't mean everyone else is. And it certainly doesn't mean that people who can't do so are somehow deserving of being left out to dry. A society that takes care of its vulnerable segments of the population is a good thing. I think we can pretty easily see this by looking at the standard of living in those terrible socialist countries in Europe.

Also, to be clear, I'm not talking about obamacare as the ideal solution here. I think it is terrible. I'm talking about single payer, which doesn't exist, but should.

Israeli Health Care 08.Oct.2013 11:44

toofauxreal

Israel should not be used as an example for anything except what a terrorist apartheid state looks like. It makes no difference what sort of health care system Israel has if you happen to be a Palestinian. The only thing people should be talking about in regard to Israel is how to end it and make reparations to Palestine and it's people.