The horrors of health insurance, public or private
In their proposed “budget,” House Republicans cite a couple of horror stories from Great Britain to illustrate why they are so strongly opposed to government-run health care. These cases, they argue, demonstrate that “under a government-run health system, bureaucrats would exercise increasing control over all health care decision-making and would resort to rationing of care as the sole means to control skyrocketing costs.”
The first case cited by the GOP involves Ann Marie Rogers, right, “who in 2006 filed a groundbreaking lawsuit in Britain seeking to force her local health care bureaucrat to pay for the breast cancer drug Herceptin.” They also quote Rogers:
“It makes me so angry that these trusts are playing God, saying ‘you can’t have this, you can’t have that.’ They’ve got no right to decide who can have this life-saving drug. This is not a poor country, after all. I have worked all my life and paid my taxes. It makes me sick to think a lot of women are in my position.”
The second case involves Ian Dobbin of Yorkshire, who was also refused a particular cancer treatment. Dobbin called the decision “a death sentence for me.”
“I feel absolutely gutted because there is no way I can find that sort of money. My life is dependent on getting this drug and without it I will die…. I’ve been paying my national insurance all my life and when it comes to the point that I need it to keep me alive, they are not prepared to help.”
Now, there’s a bit more to each of those heartbreaking stories. The Republicans don’t mention that Collins appealed the government decision and won her case, gaining access to Herceptin. But after a valiant battle, she died of cancer earlier this month. In Dobbin’s case, traditional chemotherapy had failed to halt his leukemia and he was seeking government payment for a drug that had not been tested on his disease. He got funding for the experimental treatment through an unknown private donor, but I can find no record of whether that treatment worked for him.
The larger point, however, is that both stories sound utterly familiar to Americans. There is nothing strange to them, nothing that makes them unique to a government-run insurance program. In fact, versions of those stories appear in American newspapers and TV news programs on almost a daily basis.
The only difference is that on this side of the Atlantic, the villain who denies coverage is some private insurance company bureaucrat; over there, the villain is a government bureaucrat.
The truth is that every insurance program — private or public — has to ration health care. There’s no getting around it. So when I hear conservatives complain that a single-payer system will mean that health care is rationed, or that some bureaucrat will intervene in decisions between you and your doctor, I have to wonder what world they live in.
Because that happens today, every day, under our current system. Insurance companies dictate health care decisions all the time.
One difference between the private and public system is motive. Under private insurance, the people making the decision on whether you get coverage are driven by the profit motive to say no. The more treatment they deny, the more money they’re going to make.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
204 comments Add your comment
caz1158
March 27th, 2009
11:09 am
Observer-@10:34- Are you telling us that Iphones,Xbox’s & Plasma Tv’s are NOT right to citizenship????? Seriously there NOT????? My God!!!!
Dave R
March 27th, 2009
11:09 am
And Red, know your history. While Lincoln was a Republican, he was also a champion of Federal power over states rights. Not exactly a Constitutionalist. Slavery was one of many straws that broke the camel’s back in starting the civil war, but increasing Federal power over states and individuals was much more a cause.
rightofcenter
March 27th, 2009
11:10 am
Red, A fitting moniker for someone of your apparent political persuasion. Ole Abe was right we are supposed to have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Anybody on here actually think that’s what we have? If so, I do want some of what you are smoking.
As for healthcare, it’s a mess. I don’t know what the solution is. I just know that what we have now is not the solution.
RW-(the original)
March 27th, 2009
11:11 am
DB,
You might want to invoke a post delay so you don’t fall into that mindless liberal trap of just posting knee jerk reactions. If I’m not mistaken it was you that started whining about spacing out routine doctor visits because of your insurance limitations. I don’t see any reason for routine visits to be covered under any insurance plan.
I’ll take catastrophic coverage and pay the rest out of pocket any day. No government involvement necessary.
G
March 27th, 2009
11:11 am
Dave R @ 10:36,
You.Are.Not.My.Teacher.
Corporal
March 27th, 2009
11:13 am
To getadeath:
Well now. You have debated with me long enough to know “I call ‘em like I see ‘em”. You have seen me criticize Bush when I thought he was wrong ……… and I know (although you choose to ignore it) you have seen me post several times that …..
I want Obama to fail when what he is doing is wrong for the country and I want him to succeed when what he is doing is right for the country.
I know it’s hard for you liberals to understand that concept but it’s actually quite simple.
In this “narrow” case (hunting down Isamic terrorists wherever they can be found) is good for this country.
Red
March 27th, 2009
11:15 am
I am corrected Dave R, thank you. I see it clearly now. Abraham Lincoln was a slimy politician and the framers of the Constitution never meant for it to be amended with 13 or 19 because it was a limiting document. Does anyone know what time the Rush radio show starts? I have a whole new horizon to consider.
RW-(the original)
March 27th, 2009
11:16 am
Corporal,
I really hate to come off as a blog nanny, but your pet name for “getalife” really bothers me and I wish you would consider dropping it. Thanks.
G
March 27th, 2009
11:17 am
Fornicator @ 10:45,
Tell me, are you good at what you do? I suspect you must be, hence the name.
caz1158
March 27th, 2009
11:19 am
bugger-@ 11:01am. Thank You for educating us on the Pro’s of universal health care. Now is there anyone out there that can provide us with any of the negatives that would be helpfull. OH, you say that was a neagative-not says us bedwetters!!!
Bosch
March 27th, 2009
11:20 am
It’s about the cost people. Peter hinted around at it. In my opinion, healthcare shouldn’t be about making profit, it should be about helping people. I guess I’m just a big giant socialist that way.
And I don’t see in the near future that anything is going to change, because certainly insurance companies aren’t going to give up making money.
I’ve had a couple of interesting insurance related problems this week – one my insurance company doubled the deductible I have to pay for a routine drug – a drug that costs over $7 per pill. Why should a pill that reduced gas in my stomach cost over $7 per pill? I mean I could take Tums, but it just doesn’t do the trick.
Two, the bureacrats at Medicare this month decided that my mother in law only needs one blood pressure pill a day instead of two. Because the bureacrat said so, not the doctor.
This is all maddening sometimes.
And people go to the doctor way too much in this country. I am all for routine check ups, but we should have more community health centers for smaller issues, and people need to be better educated about their own bodies.
I know I’m kind of rambling this morning.
Mrs. Godzilla
March 27th, 2009
11:22 am
Dave R
You are quite the little Federalist aren’t ya’!
Some of your compadres are:
John Roberts
Clarence Thomas
Antonin Scalia
Ann Coulter
Trent Lott
Dick Cheney
Robert Bork
Kenneth Starr
John Ashcroft
Michael Chertoff
Richard Mellon Scaife (major funder)
John Bolton
John Negroponte
Harriet Meirs
William Kristol
We have seen how the “Federalist” interpretation of the Constitution
works out.
Thanks but, No Thanks.
Dave R
March 27th, 2009
11:22 am
G, you’re right. Total ignoramuses can’t be taught. For you, it’s genetic.
You’re expelled from Constitutional school. Probably not your first time, either.
Bosch
March 27th, 2009
11:23 am
Yeah Corporal, that’s not cool. Getalife’s name is multi-meaning dude.
HavingMySay
March 27th, 2009
11:24 am
The new definition of Greed – when you put a value and dollar amount on everything, even human life. Or I can sell you anything, as long as I tell you that it exist and that it will be profitable to you in the future.
RW-(the original)
March 27th, 2009
11:26 am
Bosch,
Have you tried over the counter Omeprazole? It’s got the same dosage as Nexium and costs about 10 bucks for two weeks worth.
Dave R
March 27th, 2009
11:27 am
Actually, Red, the Framers specifically provided for amendments, and the 13th was certainly a good one.
The jury is still out on the 19th, however . . .;)
caz1158
March 27th, 2009
11:28 am
Bosch- Are in your opinion other industries that should not make a profit? Heating/Air, Plumbing, Auto Industry, Legal Services,& Food Services, to name a few. All that help us in one way or another,and are for profit industries.
G
March 27th, 2009
11:32 am
Absolutely compelling.
http://www.pnhp.org/
Observer
March 27th, 2009
11:35 am
Mrs. G writes, “We have seen how the “Federalist” interpretation of the Constitution works out. Thanks but, No Thanks.”
You do realize, don’t you, that The Federalist was written by the very people who authored the Constitution? I guess by saying, “Thanks but, no thanks” to them, you are saying that your interpretation of the Constitution is correct and theirs is incorrect. So, the “framers” didn’t know what they were framing?
Make no mistake, The Federalist is THE DEFINITIVE SOURCE of constitutional intent. On that point, there is no debate – at least not intelligent debate. I’m sure however, G will find a way to debate it.
Later, all. I am swamped for the rest of the day.
Californication
March 27th, 2009
11:35 am
Mrs Godzilla, promote does not mean provide, learn your English.
getalife
March 27th, 2009
11:35 am
Okay, lets give the private some suggestions on my name but I have been called worse.
Here are some con favorites:
get a life , wish you would.
getajob,
getlost,
getabrain,
nolife,
lowlife,
And many other names on the RW and LW blogs.
@@
March 27th, 2009
11:36 am
Mrs. G:
Might I ask what the purpose of your 9:07 on the previous page was?
It was pretty damn obvious that Daniel Hannon was a member of the British Parliament (making him NOT a U.S. citizen) and that his arguments were those of a conservative.
You had to go to DailyKos having them point that out to you?
You really have proven yourself to be quite dense, Mrs. G.
Dave R:
Your solutions to the healthcare problems were thought-provoking. It’s a shame nobody wanted to put much thought into them. A discussion on the points would have been GREAT but alas, that’s not why liberals show up here.
I don’t really know enough about the topic to engage but I’m always ready to learn.
caz1158
March 27th, 2009
11:37 am
I guess it scares me when I hear talk of who should make money and who should’nt. Who decides? And who gives them that power? Would anyone ecept that notion in whatever business that they ran or thought of opening?
Californication
March 27th, 2009
11:39 am
Enter your comments here
G
March 27th, 2009
11:39 am
Non-Observer @ 11:35,
The swamp. A good place for you. Maybe it will clear your mind.
RB from Gwinnett
March 27th, 2009
11:41 am
Two comments
The only people who are for a government run healthcare system are people who don’t have insurance today and the people who want their votes. These people don’t want “affordable” healthcare, they want it free to them at the expense of evil rich CEO’s. Don’t kid yourselves.
We need to get the runny noses out of the system. Your car insurance doesn’t pay for dead batteries. Health insurance should only cover big ticket issues that have the potential to bankrupt you.
@@
March 27th, 2009
11:41 am
Getalife:
I always liked Andy’s “alGitmo” and so did you, if I recall.
ByteMe
March 27th, 2009
11:43 am
RW: From way earlier (tryin’ to get some work done here!), I’ll accept that “extended warranty” is a better term, although those don’t have much in common with each other. With cars, consumables are never included (which includes oil, rubber belts, filters, etc.). With my A/C unit, filters ARE included, but I can see through them, so I guess they’re intended to catch whatever my 2-year-old son decides to throw into the register in the family room, but not much else.
Anyway… what was the point?? Really, I’m totally lost on where you were driving this buggy.
Whiner: your postings on global warming are so dumb they must be parody of something, though I must admit that I don’t get the parody. You know that conservatives don’t do parody well, right?
ByteMe
March 27th, 2009
11:45 am
Duke lost last night! It’s all Obamamamamamamamama’s fault!!! Waaaahhhh!!!!!!
G
March 27th, 2009
11:46 am
Dave R @ 11:22,
If someone doesn’t agree with you, you immediately start with the insults.
Definite personality flaw there.
Are you under the illusion that you are providing a service here?
Someone as insignificant as you?
Dave R
March 27th, 2009
11:47 am
Actually, Mrs. G, most of these names are NOT Constitutionalists. At least not in practice. Some, in fact, ARE Federalists, which is NOT a good thing. Don’t go by the title of the Federalist Papers as being about a large Federal government; they more describe the perils of a large Federal government.
John Roberts – Yes!
Clarence Thomas – Yes!
Antonin Scalia – Yes!
Ann Coulter – No!
Trent Lott – No!
Dick Cheney – NO!
Robert Bork – NO!
Kenneth Starr – On the fence
John Ashcroft – NO!
Michael Chertoff – Not in any lifetime
Richard Mellon Scaife (major funder) – No
John Bolton – Probably. Great UN Ambassador, however.
John Negroponte – No
Harriet Meirs – No
William Kristol – Definitely NOT!
Anything ELSE you’d like to be wrong about today?
Red
March 27th, 2009
11:48 am
Dave R, if you agree that the Constitution can be amended based on changing societal norms of what is decent and just based on the evolution of thought, then why can we not agree that the time has come to ‘provide for the common defense’ (against infectious diseases like TB on the Marta train) by providing adequate affordable health care for all?
Mrs. Godzilla
March 27th, 2009
11:49 am
Observer….
You silly boy! Of course. I know they were SOME of the Framers of the Constitution…. and some of what they wanted they got and some of what they wanted they did not get.
“Constitutional Topic: The Federalists and Anti-Federalists”
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_faf.html
The arguments pro and con are not much different today than they were then.
Again, considering who are todays’ Federalists….thanks but no thanks.
Californication
Correct-a-mundo! It also does not mean can’t won’t or shouldn’t. Learn your English.
Dusty
Just wanted to point out his support for Obama – pretty damn not dense.
I know it required reading the whole thing and all….
I Report/ You Whine
March 27th, 2009
11:51 am
BiteMe: I wasn’t trying to make you understand, after all, I am not a miracle worker, you stump jumper.
There are some things that are just hopeless, you know?
RW-(the original)
March 27th, 2009
11:52 am
ByteMe,
I was discussing a point that another poster brought up in an attempt to debate that poster’s point with that poster. If you feel the need to butt in you should start at the beginning and not make believe I was generating a talking point out of thin air.
Thanks for your continued devotion to my writings, but alas I must take my leave now. The refresh problems have become more of a nuisance than I care to deal with for the afternoon. How the AJC can even screw up a Wordpress format is beyond me, maybe you could give them some help, BM.
Later y’all, see you at happy hour and the first round is on me.
G
March 27th, 2009
11:53 am
Off topic
Does anyone happen to know if the Rushpublicant Budget(Fudge It)has any numbers in it this morning?
PJ
March 27th, 2009
11:54 am
Speaking from experience I can say that our government can run a health system and does it work well. My last child was born at Walter Reed Hospital, by Cesarean, and was a preemie and I could not have asked for better treatment for myself and her. I had my tubilgation at Kimbrough Military Hospital at Ft. Meade in Maryland and my oldest daughter had surgery there for her tonsils and adenoids. All three of my children had all their well baby care at the same hospital and all are now healthy adults. My family received medical care at the other Army facilities in Maryland and here in Georgia with no complaints and at no cost (I guess some of you might consider this a government hand out). And Since my husbands retirement from the Army, Tricare Insurance has taken good care of our medical needs. My husband had surgery and has received health care at the VA hospital here in Georgia. I was born at at Elmendorf Air Force Base Hospital in Anchorage, Alaska and My brother was born at Ft. Meade. My father passed away in the VA hospital in Maryland after a long bout with cancer and I know he could have not gotten the treatment he got there anywhere as as good and with dignity. I say all this to say that the Government can run medical systems successfully. I am sure that like everywhere else mistakes will happen but for the most part I have had nothing but satisfaction.
Bosch
March 27th, 2009
11:58 am
caz,
You might want to give me time to answer, but no I don’t think that insurance companies should not make a profit. That’s your projection not mine. Don’t go ’round putting words in people’s mouth.
RW,
I haven’t tried that, but thanks. I went ahead and paid the 75 bucks for the Nexium. I don’t mess around with stomach fire!
Dave R
March 27th, 2009
12:03 pm
Red, because by mandating “affordable” health care for “all” requires you to take from someone, either a taxpayer or a doctor, that which he or she has earned and “give” it to someone else.
A right is something that you have regardless of anyone else’s services or income.
As to the “common defense”, that was also defined in the Framers documents as defense of the nation from foreign and domestic enemies. Those that would take from us, by force, our life, liberty or property.
ByteMe
March 27th, 2009
12:04 pm
RW: I actually have thought about looking at the headers to see where they screwed up the caching lines, but that would look more like work and who would I tell anyway?
Whiner: which is to say that you have no clue either, since when you get called on writing something stupid, you resort to name-calling like a little boy in middle school. I guess you consider that “communicating” or “debating”, but the rest of us just think you’re a weenie and a whiner. And a welcher.
RW-(the original)
March 27th, 2009
12:08 pm
Bosch,
Caught your comment before i signed off. I used to take Nexium which was basically the same as Prilosec. Once Prilosec came out over the counter I started using it and it works just as well. When I was still taking Nexium I ordered it from CanadaRX where it was far cheaper, but if you go that route make sure you have a prescription on hand to use at Floyd’s. Those cheap Canada drugs come with that nasty little rationing problem that always comes along with government controls so sometimes it took them 3 or 4 months to fill my prescription. They always seemed to be able to process my credit card payment on day 1 though.
Later!
Bosch
March 27th, 2009
12:08 pm
The AJC’s website and my computer are not getting along, so hopefully this post will make it.
Later all.
Dave R
March 27th, 2009
12:08 pm
G.
Insignificant? Me?
I am the highest order of life form you will ever encounter; a free, thinking, intelligent human being who is blessed to be a citizen of the United States of America.
I am an individual. I need nothing else to aspire to be.
You – are a drone.
caz1158
March 27th, 2009
12:10 pm
Bosch-Sorry must have read it wrong,will re-read.
Dave R
March 27th, 2009
12:14 pm
Later, dudes and dudettes. Gotta go work to pay da man!
LoLo
March 27th, 2009
12:17 pm
Jay says, “One difference between the private and public system is motive. Under private insurance, the people making the decision on whether you get coverage are driven by the profit motive to say no. The more treatment they deny, the more money they’re going to make.”
Under government insurance the people saying no are the bureaucrats appointed by power-hungry politicians eager to keep the people under their control for the simple game of winning elections. Once helthcare crosses to the dark-side it is all too easy to state that my opponent wants to take away your “right” to healthcare.
Jay, what makes you think the government care do a better job than private companies. I’m not thrilled with Insurance companies that often but if one is doing a poor job en masse then you would see its profits diminish as people change their providers.
Basing an argument on the insurance companies only see $$ in their eyes by denying coverage is simplistic populism. What the government needs to do is allow for more insurance competition. You would see even less covergae denials that way.
Mrs. Godzilla
March 27th, 2009
12:18 pm
Dave R
I posted:
“You are quite the little Federalist aren’t ya’!
Some of your compadres are:”
You Post:
“Actually, Mrs. G, most of these names are NOT Constitutionalists. At least not in practice. Some, in fact, ARE Federalists, which is NOT a good thing.”
The list of names includes current and former members and/or supporters of the Federalist Society who interpret the law and the consitution as envisioned by the Founders who wrote THE FEDERALIST PAPERS.
Folks with normal levels of reading comprehension would not have read
“You are quite the little Federalist aren’t ya’! Some of your compadres are:” to mean they were Constitutionalists.
I love the part where you say “in fact, ARE Federalists, which is NOT a good thing.”
Now to borrow from your post again…..Anything ELSE you’d like to be wrong about today?
Mrs. Godzilla
March 27th, 2009
12:21 pm
small adjustment to the above post…..
not all the Founders/Framers were Federalists…..
Thomas Jefferson for example was not.
mm
March 27th, 2009
12:21 pm
Whiner,
Who the heck do you think pays for those free emergency room visits for the poor? We all do. Through our insurance.
Corporal
March 27th, 2009
12:22 pm
RW (the Original):
Here’s the deal on “getalife” vs. “getadeath”.
We all pick our “handles” for various reasons. Some of them are strange but it’s our choice. Those “handles” should be respected. My handle is Corporal and that’s the way I want to be addressed. Sometimes “getalife” responds to me as Corporal and sometimes he chooses to address me as “private”. When he does that, I return post him as “getadeath”. I am not suggesting he “die”, I am just “reversing” his handle as he does mine.
It’s his choice. I will respect his handle if he respects mine.
I also do the same to Taxpayer/Taxavoider and some others which I won’t take the time to go into.
If you did not respect my handle you would become probably – WR (the Unoriginal).
Corporal
March 27th, 2009
12:25 pm
Bosch:
See my 12:22.
Corporal
March 27th, 2009
12:27 pm
To Getalife (call me Corporal and I will call you that):
By the way, you haven’t responded to my 11:13 answer to your post.
Taxpayer
March 27th, 2009
12:36 pm
To be fair, I have also demoted Corporal to ‘PFC’ and ‘PSC’ and ‘Grunt’, to name a few. I’m still trying to figure out what to demote him to that is below ‘Grunt’. ‘Dirt’, perhaps?
DB, Gwinnettian
March 27th, 2009
12:37 pm
Boy, I’ve had a real problem getting these comments pages to load, anyone else?
Just to tidy up a bit–RW wrote prior to heading out…
If I’m not mistaken it was you that started whining about spacing out routine doctor visits because of your insurance limitations.
If
“I [...] have had to foot the bill for private insurance for some years and know very well what it’s like to deal with decisions about when to visit a doc, how to space out regular checkups, putting off non-critical treatments, and so forth”
constitutes “whining” then I’m guilty as charged. But that seems like a pretty broad definition to me.
Anyway, I’ll freely admit that the checkups themselves aren’t the tough part, it’s what they find during the checkups and the decisions one anticipates having to make about whether to take doc’s advice about treatment, or find a reason to put it off due to cost, that weighs more heavily.
Dave R
March 27th, 2009
12:39 pm
Mrs. G, joining something does not make you one.
Constitutionalists are defined by their ACTIONS, not who they associate with. That is why I separated my remarks about Constitutionalists vs. Federalists. Sorry you couldn’t catch that little bit of common-sense English. Nice try, though.
And very good, Mrs. G., on the Thomas Jefferson thing. Seems you ARE capable of learning something after all.
@@
March 27th, 2009
12:40 pm
For those who are taking Nexium or Prilosec….why pay the cost and suffer the side effects? From my own personal experience, club soda (small bottles) works better. I’ve turned several of my friends who were on meds for “stomach fire” onto club soda. Their over-the-counter drug relief has been replaced with off-the-shelf grocery relief.
DB, Gwinnettian
March 27th, 2009
12:41 pm
I am the highest order of life form you will ever encounter
Lord help us. We’re doomed!
Dave R
March 27th, 2009
12:41 pm
Anything lower than “grunt” would be called – Taxpayer.
danjonglee
March 27th, 2009
12:42 pm
Stop saying Liberal. We are not liberals, we are Statist. Liberals are for Liberty. Statist is the appropriate definition…
Corporal
March 27th, 2009
12:50 pm
Taxpayer:
I shouldn’t tell you this but ………. it would be “sailor”…..
)
You are now back to “Taxcriminal” ……
P.S. What I really feel sorry about the people in Great Britain is that they have no dentists.
Mrs. Godzilla
March 27th, 2009
12:52 pm
Dave R
“”Joining something does not make you one?”"
Corporal joined but was not a Marine? I joined but was not a Girl Scout?
Ratzinger joined but he isn’t a Catholic!
“”"Constitutionalists are defined by their ACTIONS, not who they associate with.”" No shoot Sherlock!
“”"That is why I separated my remarks about Constitutionalists vs. Federalists. Sorry you couldn’t catch that little bit of common-sense English. Nice try, though.”"” Great cover for getting all confused.
One thing I learned, is that you are in way over your head.
Corporal
March 27th, 2009
12:53 pm
HEADLINE: Russia plans to create Arctic military force …
And we thought is was over ……….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du7ls7v2uYQ
Where is Jim Brown when we need him ?
Corporal
March 27th, 2009
12:54 pm
P.S.
Hey I forgot …….. if you watch the above video you will see that the Captain of the ship was a “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”. See, they served honorably.
Corporal
March 27th, 2009
12:58 pm
Mrs. Godzilla:
Congratulations on your 12:52 (Corporal joined but was not a Marine?).
It has now earned you a place as #3 on my list.
williewonka
March 27th, 2009
12:59 pm
G….I think the pages were numbered!
Taxpayer
March 27th, 2009
1:00 pm
If you want to read about some serious corporate greed — greed that will make you sick — then check this out.
Corporal
March 27th, 2009
1:02 pm
Headline: Obama vows to ‘disrupt, dismantle and defeat’ Taliban
Headline: Johnson vows to ‘disrupt, dismantel and defeat’ the Viet Cong
Corporal
March 27th, 2009
1:03 pm
Sorry: I was having a flashback. Dismantle
AmVet
March 27th, 2009
1:04 pm
Mrs. G, I salute you for trying to engage the unengageable.
By now you must realize though, that you are verbally jousting with a mind bigger than, John Marshall’s, Oliver Wendell Holmes’, Earl Warren’s and William Brennan’s, all rolled into one.
In spite of his VAST knowledge of all things regarding American jurisprudence, I contend that irrefutably, the biggest thing the guy has going for him is an enormously over-sized ego and matching oral cavity.
And for gawd’s sakes don;t get him started on sunspots and global warming…
G
March 27th, 2009
1:07 pm
Dave R,
I see you’ve set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public.
Bosch
March 27th, 2009
1:07 pm
I’m trying again. We’ll see what happens.
caz,
I went back and re-read my earlier post too. I guess I can see where one might take it like you did, but it certainly wasn’t my intention. I do believe however, that insurance companies and healthcare providers bottom line is the most important to them, which I find regrettable, but true, but they are a business. I do not for one minute think that they should NOT work to make a profit, because those companies provide many thousands of jobs (my sister for one) for people.
I think as the Baby Boomers get older that our attitudes about medicine and healthcare will change dramatically, and it will not be pretty. I think we need to start now doing everything we can to make sure we are healthy in the future – eat better, stop smoking, drinking, etc. I do not feel the government should be solely responsible for taking care of our healthcare needs, I feel that we need to start doing that ourselves by educating ourselves more about our bodies and exercising more.
A few months ago, I did a little experiment and walked everywhere I went – it sucked. I would like to see better transportation systems in place where walking is a more viable option – more community grocery stores, more community health centers, etc. and more biking trails where I could if I wanted to ride my bike more places, or my kids could ride their bikes to school and not fear getting ran over.
G
March 27th, 2009
1:08 pm
Dave R,
I don’t know for sure, but I’ve got a feeling you know more than God.
Bosch
March 27th, 2009
1:09 pm
Mrs. G.,
Newt’s joining up to be a Catholic. Have ya’ heard? But, does that mean he will be one or not?
Let Me Tell You
March 27th, 2009
1:09 pm
I blew out my knee.. have great insurance.. sat in emergency room for 5 hours waiting because everyone WITHOUT insurance and illegal with a kid who had a runny nose was there after 5 hours said forget it and went home, called friends and got enough pain pills to get through the weekend. Had Surgery Tuesday and ended up with a replacement –but they had to wait til they could get the swelling down .. and the doc said I would have surgery the day I went to the hospital if they just could have gotten a call from the EMERGENCY ROOM DOCTOR .. but no .. never got through the triage! My husband called 3 other hospitals all the emergency rooms for full. Good thing I have a very strong threshold for pain.
If we go the route they are proposing… probably would have been put on a WAIT list for replacements .. that is what happens in Canada, and over the pond .. they just put you on crutches and tell you they will call you when it’s your time!
Bosch
March 27th, 2009
1:13 pm
Let Me Tell You,
Did you personally interview all those people in the waiting room to see if they had no insurance or were illegals?
And you do know that getting pain pills from your friends is illegal. Just saying.
G
March 27th, 2009
1:17 pm
The Rushpublicant fiscal plan is the same as it’s always been…
http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/Fiscal%20responsibility.JPG
DB, Gwinnettian
March 27th, 2009
1:19 pm
A few months ago, I did a little experiment and walked everywhere I went – it sucked. I would like to see better transportation systems in place where walking is a more viable option – more community grocery stores, more community health centers, etc. and more biking trails where I could if I wanted to ride my bike more places, or my kids could ride their bikes to school and not fear getting ran over.
Agreed, that’s a huge problem, and Exhibit A in my case against “letting the free market decide” when it comes to issues like urban/suburban/exurban planning.
The cost of retrofitting all these landlocked subdivisions dumping out onto streets with no bike lanes or, often, not even a decent sidewalk is astronomical. But it really does need to be done.
Bosch
March 27th, 2009
1:20 pm
The healthcare debate will be interesting in the near future. We will be asking ourselves some tough questions, like do 100 year old people need blood pressure medication?
And caz, before you accuse me of being a heartless meany, I’m not suggesting that we should stop denying medication to old people, it’s a rhetorical question, but we will as a society start to see things alot different as the Boomers get older and older.
Let Me Tell You
March 27th, 2009
1:21 pm
Well Bosch I’m a very observant person .. and when they asked how they would pay .. got the “no” .. if they spoke well enough English to understand what was being asked. The first thing they ask AT THE DESK when you sign in .. “We need your insurance card and ID .. and if no insurance card or ID .. HOW WILL YOU BE PAYING FOR THIS? As far as the pain pills go .. you do what you have to do …. guess I should have been a pansy and just called an ambulance and got right in .. but still try to play with in the rules, even though others don’t!
Bosch
March 27th, 2009
1:24 pm
DB,
Agreed. I think it would be cool for developers to start developing little communities – why can’t they put a store in those sub-divisions? Or a health care facility? Little things like that could make so much difference.
A couple of summers ago, i went to Seaside down in FL, it’s kind of like that. It’s a community for the super rich, but it was cool. They had grocery stores, restaurants, shopping centers right there where people could walk and they had bikes people could rent to get around. It was really neat.
Bosch
March 27th, 2009
1:26 pm
Let Me Tell You,
So I’ll take that as a “no” you didn’t interview everyone in the emergency room that day to see if they had insurance or were in the country illegally.
And you should really be careful admitting criminal activity on a blog – this site isn’t secure you know. Jay might even have an obligation to report you.
@@
March 27th, 2009
1:27 pm
DB:
Down here in Clayton County, democrat owned and operated, we have sidewalks. Where they’re not broken and cracked, they’re overgrown with weeds.
Novel idea but obviously not worth democrats maintaining.
Taxpayer
March 27th, 2009
1:28 pm
Rule No. 1: Never get sick on a weekend.
Rule No. 2: Never get sick on a weekday.
Taxpayer
March 27th, 2009
1:36 pm
@@, those sidewalks were put in back in the day when the current Republicans were Democrats.
G
March 27th, 2009
1:43 pm
All you people who joined in holy matrimony – guess what?
Bosch
March 27th, 2009
1:44 pm
G,
What?
G
March 27th, 2009
1:47 pm
Bosch,
Not married.
brougham
March 27th, 2009
1:49 pm
There’s a lot bad data flyig around here. Taxpayer, the McKinsey Global Insitute is a large consulting company that does the majority of its work for hospitals and insurance companies or their subsidiaries (READ LOBBYISTS). Their conclusions are biased as they have the profit interests of these large sectors of corporate America at heart. If we want to discuss revamping the way healthcare—and healthcare providers—are funded we need better sources of data. Lets look at the often cited “doctors make too much money” and are driven by profit claim closely…
I agree with you, in principle, that physician compensation needs to be addressed in any discussion on healthcare reform. However, it is INACCURATE to state that physicians in the US on average make A LOT more than physicians in two countries commonly suggested as having “better quality care” for less—the UK and Canada. The figures listed below are earnings BEFORE expenses and taxes….
Here are the references for the sources of this information which are ALL government sources in the respective countries…
http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/H118-4-2004E.pdf (Canada) See page 22 table 1-2.
http://www.ic.nhs.uk/statistics-and-data-collections/primary-care/general-practice/gp-earnings-and-expenses-2006-07–initial-report *** (UK) see annex C, table 4 in the excel document
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos074.htm (US)
Canadian General practioners – $184,034 -277,280 CAN ($153,361 – 231,066 US)
Canadian Specialists – $203,104 -330,230 CAN ($169,253 – 275,191 US)
UK General practicioners- £215,186 – 321,577 ($316,450 – 472,902 US)
(Specialists in the UK make about the same amount and in many cases more than GPs)
US general practicioners (peds, family med. Internal med) – $156,010 – 161,420
US specialists – $247,348 – 321,686
***Now for the UK data pertaining to EARNINGS BEFORE EXPENSES AND TAXES YOU HAVE TO OPEN THE ZIPPED EXCEL FILE (SECOND DOCUMENT LISTED, ANNEX C, TABLE 4). IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST PDF UNDER DOCUMENTS PAGE 2 AND 3 LISTS INCOME AFTER EXPENSES—THESE ARE NOT ACCURATE FOR COMPARISON TO THE NUMBERS LISTED ABOVE FOR CANADA AND THE US RESPECTIVELY…
…Look at these numbers carefully. Again, I think it’s most accurate to compare pre-tax and pre-expense earnings given the significant variation in these factors between countries. It’s also important to use “non-biased” government sources for data. Many articles that argue US physician and healthcare worker salaries are too high use US data from private accounting firms or other sources with ties to the insurance and hospital lobbies (which overestimate salaries) and then use random sources for UK and Canadian salaries that show only post-tax and post-expense income from these countries. If you do that, the foreign salaries look low because of higher taxes and high expenses in these countries which is an inaccurate comparison.
Notice that THE SALARIES OF PHYSICIANS IN THE US, UK, AND CANADA from the sources above are on par with each other. What does this mean? It means that it is quite possible to lower healthcare costs (as in the UK and Canada) and deliver “higher quality care” (as in the UK and Canada) without decreasing physician salaries because this issue is a total RED HERRING.
The percentage of medicare and healthcare dollars going to providers (docs, nurses, techs, etc) has been constant—about 20% of total cost according to CMS—since the 1960’s. In fact, adjusted for inflation the salaries for some physician specialties has actually decreased since the 1970’s while most have simply stagnated (when adjusted for inflation). So, if the “explosion” of cost related to healthcare has occurred in the past few decades and physician salaries have been constant during that time….how can it be that is THE cause or even A cause of the current crisis? ANSWER—IT ISN’T A CAUSE AND NEVER HAS BEEN.
Furthermore, if one looks at the references above and looks at hours worked by physicians in the US, UK, and Canada one finds these numbers…
UK – 44.4 hours/ week
Canada – 51.3 hours/ week
US – 60 hours/ week
So, US physicians work more hours for roughly the same pay AND pay more for their education (though medical education in Canada isn’t cheap either).
The (pseudo) issue of physician salaries is such a media hyped, politically motivated argument designed to maximize the profits of the bloated insurance company, hospital, pharma, trial lawyer fat cats and their lobbies while screwing over those who actually deliver care.
The issue is not how much physicians make but how they make it. I completely support the administrations suggestion that physicians SHOULD NOT be paid per procedure / treatment but rather based on outcomes. We should move towards a straight salaried payment system with compensation levels similar to that of our friends in the UK and Canada. In doing so some physicians would make less but many (such as those in primary care) would actually get a raise. We should also insure that ALL physician specialties are paid roughly the same amount with incentives paid for outcomes and level of experience.
@@
March 27th, 2009
1:53 pm
Taxpayer:
Another little Clayton County tale to share. Within 3 miles of where I live there was this old…old cemetery plot. Overgrown, broken headstones. Some of the descendants called the county wanting them to spruce it up. The county put a wrought-iron fence around it, covered it with river rock, replaced the headstones because the descendants said it was the county’s fault they had been broken in the first place.
I now see those descendants putting silk flowers on the graves but everything else? It’s the county’s responsibility.
I don’t have any family in that cemetery but my tax dollars are paying to maintain it.
Do you think that’s fair?
Corporal
March 27th, 2009
1:56 pm
Taxfelon:
You’re not playing ball. See my 12:50.
Corporal
March 27th, 2009
1:58 pm
Hey – how come all you libs aren’t making any posts on the new thread ? You know, the one about President Obama making war on the terrorists ?
Taxpayer
March 27th, 2009
2:17 pm
brougham,
I don’t think that I offered up one study as some sort of “end of all studies” or the “definitive study of all things healthcare related”, etc. Further, I won’t dismiss a given study purely on the basis of who did it. I think that the best ’study’ is likely a study of all the good studies. That said, I’ll look through those that you have provided and if you care to critique the one that I provided and identify specific shortcomings, that would even have more value than a simple dismissal based on who did the study. You know what I mean.
Taxpayer
March 27th, 2009
2:22 pm
@@, sometimes, governments get involved with sites that are considered to have historic significance or they get involved because the cost is small compared to the goodwill that it brings, etc. I’m sure there are plenty of different reasons. Anyway, I don’t know if I would have agreed with their reasoning or not but if I lived there and knew about this item that was surely discussed at a local government meeting and I had a strong opinion that I felt like voicing, then I would have gone to a meeting and voiced my opinion. I hope that you did and then that would have been the best that you could have done other than remember to vote against those that did something that conflicted with your beliefs.
Hillbilly Deluxe
March 27th, 2009
2:33 pm
Some random ramblings:
From the discussions I’ve had with my doctors over the years no one has a lower opinion of the insurance industry than they do. Just mentioning the subject will make a particular one of them’s face turn red and began to use profanities that even I’m not familiar with.
Not on here, but in other blogs I’ve attempted to have Candaians give their thoughts on their healthcare system. What they think works and what they think doesn’t. I’ve never gotten good answers though because it always devolves into a peeing contest by Americans on different sides of the issue.
I do have two friends who are Canadians living here. One is in fact a naturalized U.S. citizen. Both of them seem to think the Canadian system works better than things do here. Both have employer provided insurance although one has a much better plan than the other one does.
I’ve read before that Canadians pay less in taxes than we pay in insurance for health care. I’ve never been able to verify this one way or the other. Does anyone know?
As to the analogy to “extended warranties” on automobiles I can shed a little light on that. I used to work in auto dealerships and repair facilitites. The warranties were sold for about 500% of what they cost the dealership. Since a new car then had at least a 3 year warranty, the warranty company was basically holding the money for 3 years until the manufacturers warranty ran out. As often as not, by the time the 3 years had passed and the customer needed their warranty, the company had gone bankrupt and the purchaser was SOL. And also unless it was explicitly stated in the warranty that something was covered it wasn’t regardless of what a salesman may have told the customer. (I’ve seen that fought out many times).
ConservativeAnchor
March 27th, 2009
2:46 pm
Jsy you write;
“The truth is that every insurance program — private or public — has to ration health care. There’s no getting around it.”
My father was never denied health care until two days before he died of Liver Cancer. He survived for two years dancing and playing cards with his friends and my mother, all the while getting chemo treatments, until his liver failed and he died within days.
My health care in not rationed.
I don’t think your statement is true in private insurance. That is because the Actuarial Accountants charge premiums to cover the risk.
Corporal
March 27th, 2009
3:17 pm
Taxfelon:
O.K. Take your ball and go home.
RealityKing
March 27th, 2009
3:45 pm
The difference is that you can take your business somewhere else if you don’t like you insurance company…, not so in Engaland or any other NHS. You stuck with what the government determines as your needs.
Unless of course…, your rich or one of those socialistic politicians that comes to America and pays for the best healthcare in the world.
Dave R
March 27th, 2009
5:39 pm
Db Gwinnett quote: “Lord help us. We’re doomed!”
And it only took you 70 days of Hope & Change’s administration to figure THAT out?
Some of us knew that the day after he won the election.
Dave R
March 27th, 2009
5:42 pm
And Mrs. Godzilla, I think this is why you are now on Corp’s “list.
You can join the Marines, but it takes a special person to become one.
Something you will never have the honor and privilege to find out.
And AmVet, you’re a dishonor to that moniker.