Comments on: Candidates Should Catch Up To American People On Universal Coverage

By: Mamoe

Mamoe — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:17:27 +0000

Post 77 – Comment by E
I hear what your are saying about questioning medical procedures, taking responsibility for our health. WE need to be smart advocates when it comes to our health. We attempted to advocate – but it is not working. We opted for intensive physical therapy for our son instead of costly invasive procedures. The physicians that previously were considering these procedures saw how well our son was progressing and changed their minds – told us to continue the therapies. Our 8 year old son is walking today because of these therapies. Unfortunately my husband’s insurance plan changed 3 times in the past 5 years, previous insurance funded part of these therapies, the last insurance company refuses to pay for any of the therapies, they say the therapy is not medically necessary. WE will now pay out of pocket $20,000+ annually for premiums, therapies, prescriptions. Without the therapies, our son will regress and end up with surgery. I thought I was being a smart consumer choosing therapy over surgery. I am saving money, choosing frugally- when the annual cost of therapy – $12,000 annually is cheaper than one day’s stay in a hospital – ???
The current system is not working for us. I ask again – Can anyone propose how a universal health care will help families whose children have pre-existing conditions – or “out of the box” medical needs??? Why is our medical model so quick to perform surgeries?

By: E

Tue, 27 Mar 2007 18:00:12 +0000

Do any of you know how many drs. are going into private practice in England? To get a dr of any quality there you end up paying anyway! On top of the 50% taxes. England’s economy is awful and has been for years as well as jobs being hard to come by.
If you want medical costs to come down here stop going to the dr for every little thing and quit buying over the counter remedies. Try doing things the old way, they usually work better and are a whole lot cheaper, not to mention leaving the chemical build up out of your body.
The medical and pharmacutical industries have most of the country thinking we need them and only them. 25 yrs ago my dr. was adamant I had to have my gallbladder out and I went to the library, got a stack a books and read. I still have my gallbladder and if I did have to have it out today at least it could be with laproscopy instead of an incision diagnol across my whole stomach.
I don’t have health insurance right now and I don’t want it, if it’s going to be socialized because I know how much this free medicine will cost me. Have any of you ever been in a hospital in Canada? Go there, I have been to several. No thanks.

By: Happy Guy

Happy Guy — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:11:37 +0000

Why don’t they ask it like this – Should people be responsible for themselves and their health care or are they so stupid that the government should hold their little hands and do everything for them like a socialist government?

Or better yet, do you want healthcare like Canada where practically nothing is covered and you have to wait 6 months for an MRI. Unless youâ€™re a rich Canadian like Neil Young who makes his money off America while spitting on us but has the money to come here for medical treatment.

ROTFL

By: shawn

shawn — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:39:02 +0000

No on this governmental health care.Every time the government gets involved the price of admission doubles!!Who plans on paying for this?The people who currently paying for their own care now!!Revamp the broken system now in place-not call in some more fingers to grab some of the pie for themselves.

By: Mamoe

Mamoe — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 17:52:12 +0000

Some of us in the U.S. are spending a great percentage of our income on medical. One emergency without insurance and you will be in debt for tens of thousands of dollars. We currently spend $25,000+ out of pocket for our familie’s medical needs, about 25 percent of our income, and we have health insurance?! See post 67. Anyone bother to ask what kind of health system our legislators have – do they pay premiums?, but wait thier salary is from our taxes – so are we, the taxpayers, funding their health care? Sounds like the legislators recieve universal health care, shouldered by their consitutuents? If it works for them why not for the rest of us?

By: PoliticalCritic

PoliticalCritic — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:44:21 +0000

I’m all for universal healthcare coverage….so long as it doesn’t raise my taxes.

By: Mamoe

Mamoe — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 06:42:27 +0000

Having Health Insurance is no quarantee your medical needs will be served â€œUnderinsuredâ€ or prey to policies written to benefit insurance companies? â€¦
This gets personal…
Despite having health insurance, BS of California denied medically necessary therapies for our 8 year old son. We pursued an independent review with the Department of Managed Health Care in Sacramento and despite providing letters of medical necessity and 85+ pages of documentation, the â€œcontractedâ€ state reviewer agreed with BS of California and they are no longer obligated to pay for our sonâ€™s therapy. Unfortunately, our family is at the mercy of whatever insurance policy my husbandâ€™s employer can obtain. With our sonâ€™s pre-existing condition we cannot secure insurance on our own. This issue is more complex, as it is not a matter of being underinsured, but rather we are subject to policies written so broad that the insurers can rationalize many procedures as not medically necessary; even if the insurerâ€™s decision runs contrary to medical reports and documentation provided from physicians at renowned medical establishments, Childrenâ€™s Hospital Oakland and Lucile Salter Packard Childrenâ€™s Hospital at Stanford. If our legislators are proposing health care for all, letâ€™s â€œinsureâ€ that all parties involved, namely insurance companies, are working in good faith to provide these services and are not hiding behind their cleverly written policies. Under a single payer system would we recieve financial support for these therapies? – I am not sure if a single payer system would help us families with medical needs that are â€outside of the boxâ€ – beyond preventative ?

By: muckdog

muckdog — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 03:03:50 +0000

Here’s another one for ya…

Tax burdens between UK nations

It turns out that the Welsh have to work eight days less than the national average in order to pay off their tax bills, but Northern Ireland revenues have to work four days more. Taxpayers in Wales will be working for Gordon Brown from January 1 until 24 May this year, while those in Northern Ireland will be slaving from 1 January until 6 June.

Taxpayers in England are spot on the national average, working from 1 January to 2 June, while those in Scotland are taxed less, enjoying their freedom from the tax gatherers on 27 May.

By: muckdog

muckdog — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 03:01:43 +0000

I just did a quick google search for taxes in England.

Link.

A household receiving Â£28,000 a year in disposable income pays 47.9 per cent of that in tax, while earners in the top income bracket pay 46.9 per cent.

1 British pounds = 1.9643 U.S. dollars (according to a google search)

That’s $55,000 in US, folks.

So lets hear it from you folks who make $55K or more in the US. Are you willing to pay almost half of that to the government in taxes in order to have “free” health care?

By: Andrea J. Gudat

Andrea J. Gudat — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 16:47:20 +0000

I’m not an expert on Healthcare, although I did take College level coarses in it, for my Medical Coding and Billing. I also did a paper on Canadian Healthcare. Do you realize Canada not only covers doctors, hospitals, and prscriptions, but also dental, eyecare, and nursing homes.

I don’t have the answer, I think looking at the top 10 ranked countries for Out Come by the World Health Org. and seeing how they do it, might answer the question. Since out cost per capita is double everyone else’s healthcare plans, it would help answer that question at the same time!
Andie Welaka Fl.

By: KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA

KEVIN SCHMIDT, STERLING VA — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 06:19:22 +0000

Before we talk about who is going get health care and who is going to pay for health care, shouldn’t we first talk about how to reduce the need for health care?

How can countrites like Andorra, Macau and San Marino have limited and primitive health care, yet also have the longest life spans in the world?

The U.S. has the most advanced and the most expensive health care in the world, yet it does little to keep us healthy nor does it help much in the way of extending our life spans. The U.S. is ranked 48th behind Bosnia, which is ranked 45th!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Is the AMA an organization full of quacks? Are prescription drugs just expensive poison? Is our food and water supply also full of poison? It certainly looks like the answer to all three questions is YES.

Is it possible to live a long and healthy life without the need for doctors, prescription drugs and medical operations? In the top three countries with the longest living people, the answer is certainly YES.

Now the question we must ask ourselves is, how do we alter our lifestyles and food supply so that we can stop giving our children’s inheiritance to the medical profession and the pharmeceutical industry?

I know the answer, but do you?

By: Sigh Crow

Sigh Crow — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 05:34:05 +0000

Awww Poor Michael no one is doing his homework for him and his endless questions, booo freakin hooo

By: Redvine

Redvine — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 05:14:32 +0000

Michael,

We are, together as a country, already spending more than enough money into health care to provide health care for all (universal coverage) if we switch to a single payer system. The money most of us currently send to insurance companies is enough to provide coverage for all if we get rid of the bureaucratic overhead of those insurance companies (including inappropriate emergency room usage by the uninsured).

Single payer, as has been said above, is not socialized medicine. In fact, in many ways it would be the opposite. It would allow the free market to rule.

Right now there is no real free market in health care. I can’t go to a hospital based on the quality of care I think I will receive, or based on what is convenient, or whatever. I must go to the hospital my insurance covers. I can switch insurance, but then that affects which primary care provider I can choose, or which drugs are in the formulary, or whatever. By bundling health care in this way insurance companies have destroyed the free market for health care. Single payer would restore the market — would give consumers the power to decide.

The really cool and amazing thing is that single-payer would also reduce costs so much (both by eliminating insurance company overhead, but also by providing universal coverage which gets people out of the emergency rooms and into proactive, less expensive, health settings) that it would allow universal coverage without needing to increase taxes. In fact, most of us would save money.

By: Raymond Funamoto

Raymond Funamoto — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 04:44:55 +0000

UNIVERSAL HEALTH COVERAGE FOR ALL AMERICANS NOW—-THE POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS FIRST, THE RICH ONES LATER!!!!!

By: JPark

JPark — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 04:05:11 +0000

#58 Ah, Michael, we can always count on you not to understand an issue.

By: michael

michael — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 03:28:59 +0000

“Single-payer is not socialized medicine. Socialized is when the state owns the hospitals and pays the doctors and nurses. The VA is socialized medicine.

Comment by Bluedog49 â€” March 23, 2007″

Socialized medicine is when the tax payers foot the bill!

By: michael

michael — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 03:26:16 +0000

“By the way, Muckdog, UK spending per capita on health care is only 40% of U.S. spending

Comment by VerbalKint â€” March 23, 2007″

And are you suggesting that the UK has a better health care system than the US?

By: michael

michael — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 03:24:14 +0000

“Muckdog, earlier today, a person from Britain pointed out that your numbers are in error. Your number is the average. He pointed out that the actual tax rate was more like 20 to 22%. Did you miss that or are you simply pretending not to notice that?

Comment by Bluedog49 â€” March 23, 2007″

What an idiotic statement! You yourself admit that his number is the average. Why should the average be that high? Are you suggesting that it’s ok to add an addition 22% to my taxes to support those who won’t support themselves? I WON’T!

By: michael

michael — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 03:20:10 +0000

“Why does the U.S. spend nearly twice as much per capita as the rest of the developed world on health care, yet consistently achieves significantly worse outcomes by nearly every standard quantitative measure (e.g. life expectancy, infant mortality, rates of medical errors, etc)?

Try to not run away with your tail between your legs this time, or soil yourself when answering the question.

Comment by VerbalKint â€” March 23, 2007″

Where did you get these statistics from moveon.org. Listen, you won’t find better healthcare on the planet than USA. Who has better? Canada? Sweden?

By: VerbalKint

VerbalKint — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 03:10:35 +0000

I see that sad little michael know-nothing is back. Read posts #15, 17, 18, 35, 37, 38, 47 and 49 and learn.