Gov healthcare

[moreluck]

Reid will explain the opt out, opt in function of the optimal health plan to opt about in over 50 years. Good luck America......if your state opts in or is it if your state opts out. I'm sure he will paint a clear picture for us all.
Moreluck, opting out !

[klein]

This one is for mostly for Brett !

H1N1 comparison Canada-USA !

2 min newscast :

http://www.globalnational.com/video/...dElqVze1egEwww

Just like in Hockey, we kick butt..LOL

But yes, go ahead, blame it on Obama. Poor fellow.

[wkmac]

Anthony Gregory on FoxNews' Shepard Smith and the public option.

[klein]

Originally Posted by wkmac

Anthony Gregory on FoxNews' Shepard Smith and the public option.

There ya go, solution solved :
Force Americans to eat less, excerise more, and stop smoking.
Maybe give everyone UPS driver's training, too. Less accidents will also lower costs.
But, darn insurance companies would just take in those excess profits, or atleast most of them.

[wkmac]

Originally Posted by klein

There ya go, solution solved :
Force Americans to eat less, excerise more, and stop smoking.
Maybe give everyone UPS driver's training, too. Less accidents will also lower costs.
But, darn insurance companies would just take in those excess profits, or atleast most of them.

Absolutely! Yes Sir get that free market in here where no person or industry can use compelling force and it'd put money in pockets alright. Unlike the current "PLANS" that are very specific at who will get the money and win at the end of the day, all with the aid of gov't!

The half-dozen leading overhaul proposals circulating in Congress would require all citizens to have health insurance, which would guarantee insurers tens of millions of new customers -- many of whom would get government subsidies to help pay the companies' premiums.

"It's a bonanza," said Robert Laszewski, a health insurance executive for 20 years who now tracks reform legislation as president of the consulting firm Health Policy and Strategy Associates Inc.

Some insurance company leaders continue to profess concern about the unpredictable course of President Obama's massive healthcare initiative, and they vigorously oppose elements of his agenda. But Laszewski said the industry's reaction to early negotiations boiled down to a single word: "Hallelujah!"

Healthcare Insurers Get Upper Hand

Never much of a fighter against abusive corporate power, Barack Obama is making it increasingly clear that right from his start as President, he wanted health insurance reform that received the approval of the giant drug and health insurance industries.
Earlier this year he started inviting top bosses of these companies for intimate confabs in the White House. Business Week magazine, which proclaimed recently that “The Health Insurers Have Already Won” reported that the CEO of UnitedHealth, Stephen J. Hemsley, met with the President half a dozen times.
These are the vendors. They and their campaign slush funds cannot be ignored in the power struggle over the legislation percolating in the Congress. One public result of these meetings was that the drug industry promised $80 billion in savings over ten years and the health insurance moguls promised $150 billion over the same decade. Mr. Obama trumpeted these declarations without indicating how these savings would be guaranteed, how the drug companies could navigate the antitrust laws and what was given to the health care industry by the White House in return.
We have now learned that one Obama promise was to continue the prohibition on Uncle Sam from bargaining for volume discounts on drugs that you the taxpayer have been paying for in the drug benefit program enacted in 2003.
Unknown is whether the health insurance companies were also promised continuation of Medicare Advantage with its 14 per cent added taxpayer subsidy to induce the elderly to make the move out of public Medicare. We nlw know that the Medicare public option that Mr. Obama formerly espoused but since has wavered on is almost certainly doomed.
The whole secret process is seedy and demonstrates cruel disregard for the millions of American who, whether in dire need of medical services or not, voted in “change we can believe in.”

Ralph Nader @ Counterpunch: Block Obama's Adject Surrender to Insurance and Drug Companies

I'll go you one further Klein and I'm hearing this from some hardcore left types who voted Obama but are loyal to their principles first. The whole bru-ha that the insurance companies were manipulating the process via the teaparties was a pure cover story to give cover to the Obama (Clinton Machine) adminstration and the industry who in truth were in bed with them all along from the get go! And you know what, they are dead on right. Now they want a single payer plan and nothing else where there are no insurance companies and although I won't go that far, I believe that in a true free market environment, the insurance companies as they are today along with the drug and big healthcare industry just wouldn't survive at all. They only do so now by gov't priviledge and the fact that via regulatory control there is no true free market where new players and innovation can enter the marketplace at will.

In fact, it's by gov't intervention in the first place that the insurance, drug and healthcare industries grew to be the monsters that they are. This piece is pretty good in simplicity in showing how the beast grew at the behest of intervention but I will say the author did fail IMO to mention George W. Bush's intervention on behalf of socializing medicine (Klein, that's the complete opposite of FreeMarket in case you didn't know) but dig deeper into the truth and you'll find a corporate cartel that profitted even further. Ever heard of mercantilism? Look it up! fuedalism=mercantilism=corporatism, that's a little historical hint if it helps.

Go back before Teddy Roosevelt and insurance in many respects were on the order of non-profit co-ops or some other voluntary associations. In otherwords, they weren't corp. monsters dominating Washington and Wall Street. The models of insurance today were utter failures until the interventions in the marketplace of gov't in the 20th century. It was only by intervention that the growth medium became present for them to even grow in the first place.

But since TR's time isn't it worth consideration of the absolute fact that as gov't intervention in all areas of health has grown, so has the balance sheets and quarterly profit statements of these monster "evil" corp. you are railing that I would assure profit. Put down the beer and study history a bit and you might realize just how conned we've been and it's been done by both political sides!

Excess profits to insurance companies? Seems to me the trends are clear that the more gov't intervenes on the so-called behalf of the public at large, the more those insurance profits grow! Now tell me, whose really the one stuffing those pockets full of money?

[moreluck]

So nice to see Nancy Pelosi's face on FOX this morning. It was a great reminder for me to get out my WITCH mask for Halloween !!!

[klein]

Originally Posted by wkmac

In fact, it's by gov't intervention in the first place that the insurance, drug and healthcare industries grew to be the monsters that they are. This piece is pretty good in simplicity in showing how the beast grew at the behest of intervention but I will say the author did fail IMO to mention George W. Bush's intervention on behalf of socializing medicine (Klein, that's the complete opposite of FreeMarket in case you didn't know) but dig deeper into the truth and you'll find a corporate cartel that profitted even further. Ever heard of mercantilism? Look it up! fuedalism=mercantilism=corporatism, that's a little historical hint if it helps.

Go back before Teddy Roosevelt and insurance in many respects were on the order of non-profit co-ops or some other voluntary associations. In otherwords, they weren't corp. monsters dominating Washington and Wall Street. The models of insurance today were utter failures until the interventions in the marketplace of gov't in the 20th century. It was only by intervention that the growth medium became present for them to even grow in the first place.

But since TR's time isn't it worth consideration of the absolute fact that as gov't intervention in all areas of health has grown, so has the balance sheets and quarterly profit statements of these monster "evil" corp. you are railing that I would assure profit. Put down the beer and study history a bit and you might realize just how conned we've been and it's been done by both political sides!

Excess profits to insurance companies? Seems to me the trends are clear that the more gov't intervenes on the so-called behalf of the public at large, the more those insurance profits grow! Now tell me, whose really the one stuffing those pockets full of money?

wkmac, I agree with all of your post !
Pretty neat to have private insurance while your young and healthy, but once you turn 65 - it's government paid !

Kinda like getting a life insurance, but after age 65, or a major illness, it becomes worthless and void.

Insurance providers don't want nothing to do with highrisk groups, such as over age 65 or any sort of pre-condition.
And, yes, government supported them (insurance providers) with medicare.

If this new reform comes into place, then it really sucks, leaving even more highrisk groups up to the government to support (or subsidize), while the insurance companies just syphon the best and healthy.

I'm for the public, (non per profit), option, to give the private insurance companies a run for thier money.
And , if they do run.... then they had no spot to be there in the first place.

[wkmac]

Originally Posted by klein

wkmac, I agree with all of your post !
Pretty neat to have private insurance while your young and healthy, but once you turn 65 - it's government paid !

Kinda like getting a life insurance, but after age 65, or a major illness, it becomes worthless and void.

Insurance providers don't want nothing to do with highrisk groups, such as over age 65 or any sort of pre-condition.
And, yes, government supported them (insurance providers) with medicare.

If this new reform comes into place, then it really sucks, leaving even more highrisk groups up to the government to support (or subsidize), while the insurance companies just syphon the best and healthy.

I'm for the public, (non per profit), option, to give the private insurance companies a run for thier money.
And , if they do run.... then they had no spot to be there in the first place.

Klein,

The very issues you spoke above as problems were created by a system of alliance between gov't and business. This is not free market, this is mercantilism or socialist capitalism if you will to the benefit of the narrow market players thus created by this corp/gov't alliance. The non-profit co-ops you spoke of were in fact a common way of confronting risk before the latter part of the 19th and especially the 20th century. Fratural organizations, religious organizations, even unions otherwise known earlier as guilds provided all sorts of relief in various conditions and also in areas of healthcare. Many communities for example had house or barn raising in the case of fires and this in turn brought the community closer together. But then, that kind of society would require workers to not be as available to work because they are acting as neighors so if the corp/state alliance step in to fill these so call holes, the corp. has their workers and the state derives more tax revenue and then when the state failsafe systems stop functioning because of self interested interventions, the system can be cut or the workers told to work harder to make up the shortfall but they are never told that it was the so-called wise leaders who were the ones that screwed it up in the first place. Then along came debt borrowing with fractional reserve banking and fiat currency and then the whole thing went haywire!

However, in the 20th century ideal of "free markets" these true free market ideas of voluntary associations were seen as threat so gov't public policy including tax policy began to be shaped in such a way as to harm this natural volunteer and non profit free market approach (free market meaning you could volunteer to take part or decline, no one compelled) and as this system was by policy killed off, our current nightmare was left to fill the void.

Our system is unsustainable, no arguement from me on that but why should I treat the healthcare industry and insurance like Brer Rabbit and throw them back into the briar patch?

Maybe it comes down to how I see liberty verses Utopianism.

[klein]

Originally Posted by wkmac

Klein,

The very issues you spoke above as problems were created by a system of alliance between gov't and business. This is not free market, this is mercantilism or socialist capitalism if you will to the benefit of the narrow market players thus created by this corp/gov't alliance. The non-profit co-ops you spoke of were in fact a common way of confronting risk before the latter part of the 19th and especially the 20th century. Fratural organizations, religious organizations, even unions otherwise known earlier as guilds provided all sorts of relief in various conditions and also in areas of healthcare. Many communities for example had house or barn raising in the case of fires and this in turn brought the community closer together. But then, that kind of society would require workers to not be as available to work because they are acting as neighors so if the corp/state alliance step in to fill these so call holes, the corp. has their workers and the state derives more tax revenue and then when the state failsafe systems stop functioning because of self interested interventions, the system can be cut or the workers told to work harder to make up the shortfall but they are never told that it was the so-called wise leaders who were the ones that screwed it up in the first place. Then along came debt borrowing with fractional reserve banking and fiat currency and then the whole thing went haywire!

No system is actually failsafe.
Yesterday, on my news here, was a big report about thousands of concerned parents taking thier children to emergency rooms, because of H1N1 scare.
And, 99% of them just had the common cold, or a sneeze.
Putting a burden on our system forsure.
But, guess what ?
No extra costs ! (since they are paid upon just being open, not for cliental).

Now, if Americans panic like some of us did (or maybe they already do ?).
Can you imagine the rise in insurance costs ?
Esspecially, emergency rooms, (just to step in the door is $525.00, average there, never mind any kind of treatment they may be given).

I guess, in a way, the only fair system would be, to have self payment in order.
And people wouldn't "abuse" it as much.

But, can't go that way, either, since most procedures, (if needed), would put you into bankruptcy, or death because of lack of funds.

So, therefor, I'm still sticking with the government option.

[Baba gounj]

1990 pages for a bill put together by lawyers, yet it DOES NOT contain the two most important words..........TORT REFORM.

[moreluck]

I heard they will be tagging on another 800 and some pages to that 1990 already. Long winded s.o.b.'s, huh??

[wkmac]

Originally Posted by klein

No system is actually failsafe.

ABSOLUTELY! Never thought otherwise no matter what answer was proposed or by who.

[moreluck]

KEN CALVERT
Member of Congress
Three alarming outcomes of the Pelosi Health Care Plan:
RAISES TAXES: The Pelosi bill breaks a promise made by President Obama, imposing a range of tax increases on families with income below $250,000. Tax increases on middle class families include: an individual mandate tax of up to 2.5 percent of income for taxpayers earning as little as $9,350; a repeal of tax incentives for Americans to purchase many popular medicines with funds from an HSA (health savings account); new limits on FSAs (flexible spending accounts) destroying tax incentives for Americans to plan ahead for their medical expenses; a "wheel chair" tax that the independent Congressional Budget Office agrees will be passed on to consumers; and a new tax on all insurance policies.
MASSIVE CUTS TO MEDICARE ADVANTAGE: Under the Pelosi health care plan, $170 billion would be cut from the highly successful Medicare Advantage Program, which covers almost 50% of the Medicare beneficiaries in the 44th Congressional District. These cuts undermine a program that gives seniors the choice to enroll in a private option that provides the same benefits as traditional Medicare, prescription drug and other additional health benefits, usually with lower copayments. These cuts will result in reduced benefits to Medicare Advantage beneficiaries or in fixed income seniors having to pay higher premiums and copayments for the same level of service. The Pelosi bill also gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services unchecked authority to reject any Medicare Advantage or Part D provider’s offer to provide coverage, giving another bureaucrat the unlimited authority to force 10 million beneficiaries off of Medicare Advantage and onto government-run Medicare.
REWARDS TRIAL LAWYERS: The Pelosi plan bribes states to repeal effective liability reforms that cap fees for trial lawyers and limit punitive damages in malpractice lawsuits. California, which enacted these common sense reforms to lower medical liability costs for their residents, will lose out on federal funds for its health care systems if it does not repeal its reforms. This provision would force California to choose whether to put money into the hands of trial lawyers and repeal reforms or sacrifice needed health care dollars.
Text of the health care bills can be found here:
H.R. 3962 - Affordable Health Care for America Act as Introduced: http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf, and
H.R. 3961 - Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act of 2009: http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_sgr1.pdf

[klein]

The roiling debate over health care in the United States appears to have made Canadians feel even better about their own system.
In 2005, 71 per cent of Canadians said they would get better care here in case of serious illness. That pecentage has now grown to 77 per cent.


Full story here:

Obama love-in has little impact on how Canadians view Americans, poll finds

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/0...al/poll_cda_us

[Baba gounj]

o

Obamacare would include 111 new agencies for empowering the government

1. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)
2. Grant program for wellness programs to small employers (Section 112, p. 62)
3. Grant program for State health access programs (Section 114, p. 72)
4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)
5. Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 223, p. 111)
6. Health Choices Administration (Section 241, p. 131)
7. Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 244, p. 138)
8. Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 155)
9. Program for technical assistance to employees of small businesses buying Exchange coverage (Section 305(h), p. 191)
10. Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Commissioner (Section 306(b), p. 194)
11. Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 307, p. 195)
12. State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 308, p. 197)
13. Grant program for health insurance cooperatives (Section 310, p. 206)
14. "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 321, p. 211)
15. Ombudsman for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 321(d), p. 213)
16. Account for receipts and disbursements for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 322(b), p. 215)
17. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)
18. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for "culturally and linguistically appropriate services" (Section 1222, p. 617)
19. Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)
20. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicare (Section 1301, p. 653)
21. Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 672)
22. Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 681)
23. Independence at home demonstration program (Section 1312, p. 718)
24. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)
25. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)
26. Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 753)
27. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 784)
28. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 786)
29. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 796)
30. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 804)
31. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 859)
32. Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 933)
33. Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 978)
34. Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 1647, p. 1000)
35. Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 1058)
36. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1730A, p. 1073)
37. Nursing facility supplemental payment program (Section 1745, p. 1106)
38. Demonstration program for Medicaid coverage to stabilize emergency medical conditions in institutions for mental diseases (Section 1787, p. 1149)
39. Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 1162)
40. "Identifiable office or program" within CMS to "provide for improved coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibles" (Section 1905, p. 1191)
41. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 1907, p. 1198)
42. Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 1214)
43. Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 1224)
44. Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 1236)
45. Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 1240)
46. Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 1253)
47. Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 1254)
48. Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 1258)
49. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)
50. Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 1275)
51. Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 1286)
52. Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1295)
53. Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1301)
54. Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 1305)
55. Grant program for research and demonstration projects related to wellness incentives (Section 2301, p. 1305)
56. Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 1308)
57. Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 1313)
58. Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 1322)
59. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 1330)
60. Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 1352)
61. Grant program for nurse-managed health centers (Section 2512, p. 1361)
62. Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2521, p. 1372)
63. Grant program for interdisciplinary mental and behavioral health training (Section 2522, p. 1382)
64. "No Child Left Unimmunized Against Influenza" demonstration grant program (Section 2524, p. 1391)
65. Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)
66. Grant program for interdisciplinary training, education, and services for individuals with autism (Section 2527(a), p. 1402)
67. University centers for excellence in developmental disabilities education (Section 2527(b), p. 1410)
68. Grant program to implement medication therapy management services (Section 2528, p. 1412)
69. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors in underserved communities (Section 2530, p. 1422)
70. Grant program for State alternative medical liability laws (Section 2531, p. 1431)
71. Grant program to develop infant mortality programs (Section 2532, p. 1433)
72. Grant program to prepare secondary school students for careers in health professions (Section 2533, p. 1437)
73. Grant program for community-based collaborative care (Section 2534, p. 1440)
74. Grant program for community-based overweight and obesity prevention (Section 2535, p. 1457)
75. Grant program for reducing the student-to-school nurse ratio in primary and secondary schools (Section 2536, p. 1462)
76. Demonstration project of grants to medical-legal partnerships (Section 2537, p. 1464)
77. Center for Emergency Care under the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (Section 2552, p. 1478)
78. Council for Emergency Care (Section 2552, p 1479)
79. Grant program to support demonstration programs that design and implement regionalized emergency care systems (Section 2553, p. 1480)
80. Grant program to assist veterans who wish to become emergency medical technicians upon discharge (Section 2554, p. 1487)
81. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 2562, p. 1494)
82. National Medical Device Registry (Section 2571, p. 1501)
83. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 2581, p. 1597)
84. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 2581, p. 1598)
85. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 2581, p. 1602)
86. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)
87. National Women's Health Information Center (Section 2588, p. 1611)
88. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1614)
89. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women's Health and Gender-Based Research (Section 2588, p. 1617)
90. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women's Health
91. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women's Health
92. Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel
93. Grant program for national health workforce online training
94. Grant program to disseminate best practices on implementing health workforce investment programs
95. Demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals
96. Demonstration program for substance abuse counselor educational curricula
97. Program of Indian community education on mental illness
98. Intergovernmental Task Force on Indian environmental and nuclear hazards
99. Office of Indian Men's Health
100. Indian Health facilities appropriation advisory board
101. Indian Health facilities needs assessment workgroup
102. Indian Health Service tribal facilities joint venture demonstration projects
103. Urban youth treatment center demonstration project
104. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for diabetes prevention
105. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for health IT adoption
106. Mental health technician training program
107. Indian youth telemental health demonstration project
108. Program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims and perpetrators
109. Program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse
110. Native American Health and Wellness Foundation
111. Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation

[Lue C Fur]

Goverment getting even bigger. But look...it will create more jobs...govt jobs.

We just keep going down the socialism road.

[moreluck]

Hey Nan,
The botox works......that smile doesn't make one wrinkle on your brow!

Pelosi's posse should enjoy their short time of triumph......the Senate will be a much harder sell......and their constituents will vote accordingly next time.

[wkmac]

YouTube- True News: The Health Care Bill Passes The House!

YouTube- True News: The Health Care Bill Passes The House!

[island1fox]

AARP --sells out senior citizens --disgraceful.
As millions of "Baby Boomers " retire and are covered by medicaid ---huge funding cuts are approved in this house Bill. Adding millions of more people but reducing the cost ---fairytale land !!
Government reducing waste in any government program ---rediculous --if Billions could easily be saved in waste --why Has Obama not even saved one dollar of it in 11 months ---make the savings first --then reduce funding !!
AARP approved this because when senior benefits are reduced --they are forced to buy AARP supplements ----AARP will raise the supplement premiums , make billions in profits and screw the people they supposedly should be protecting.
All senior Americans should drop AARP and sign up with various alternatives that truly look out for your interests without regard to your political beliefs !!!

[Benben]

Originally Posted by Baba gounj

http://www.defendyourhealthcare.us/o...npromises.html

This site explains O great health plan in detail along with the pages items can be found.

This is very scary.

BHO is lying to the American Public . You will not be able to keep your present Dr. . Any changes to your existing policy ( a co-pay change, a change in services, added coverage ) will automatically force you onto the gov't plan. If you can not prove to the IRS that you have coverage, they will rat you out. There are fines for you to pay, $1,000's basically what ever some pencil pusher decides.
No more private health plans.
Children with diabilities will recieve no care.
Elderly will be denied life extension surgeries.
Under BHO's idea of health only the young will reside in the USA.

[klein]

Since Benben's link above didn't work, I actually came accross this interessting article, (Book), from Businessweek by fluke (trying to follow it).
Something, I didn't even know, until today.

The Healing of America:
A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care
By T.R. Reid
Penguin Press; 277 pp.; $25.95

In 1994, back when President Bill Clinton's health-care reform effort was going down in flames, there was a quiet revolution in Switzerland. This wealthy federation of 26 state-like cantons, with four official languages, had a fragmented American-style health-care system. In other words, it was costly, with employer-based private insurance that left many Swiss uninsured. But unlike Clinton-era America, Switzerland got its medical act together.

It switched to a system that separates insurance from employment. Each individual or family is required to buy coverage, and insurers must offer a basic package of benefits to all applicants. They can't profit from selling basic coverage, but they can from supplemental plans. Premiums are deducted from paychecks; the unemployed and poor are subsidized.
Despite opposition from insurers, drugmakers, and business, the plan passed by a bare majority and went into effect in 1996. Switzerland now spends 11% of its gross domestic product on health care, just as it did before. But everyone is covered, insurers are more profitable than ever, and its high-quality health care has been maintained.

The lesson, as laid out in The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care, by T.R. Reid, is that "health-care systems can be changed, even in the face of powerful...interests."
Reid's book couldn't be more timely, as Democrats and Republicans do battle over health-care reform proposals that would affect one-sixth of the U.S. economy. If this insightful book were required reading for everyone involved in the debate, the odds of America ending up with a system that measures up to Switzerland's or Japan's or Taiwan's might jump.

Many Americans boast about having the best health care in the world, even though the U.N. ranks the U.S. system 37th, based on a broad range of measurements. Reid, a former Washington Post correspondent, decided to take his reporter's curiosity and examine the health-care systems of higher-ranked nations to determine what works and what doesn't.
He also took his aching shoulder. To give him more movement and less pain, an American surgeon had recommended replacing it with one made of titanium—major surgery with all the attendant risks. The cost, though covered, would be astronomical, and there was no guarantee he would feel any better. So Reid got opinions from top orthopedists in Britain, Canada, France, Germany, India, Japan, Switzerland, and Taiwan. None recommended such a radical solution.

At the same time, he learned that almost all countries use one of four health-care models: Germany's Bismarck system, in which hospitals and insurers are private entities and financing comes from payroll deductions; Britain's Beveridge Model, with the government providing health care financed by taxes; the Canadian plan, where private doctors and hospitals are paid by the government through taxes; and the out-of-pocket care found in most poor nations, where those who can afford care get it, while the rest suffer or die.
Unlike any other country, the U.S. combines all four models. The employer-based coverage most workers get follows the Bismarck Model. Veterans and soldiers are treated under the Beveridge Model (which conservatives often call socialized medicine). Medicare is so similar to Canada's system that they share the name. And the 47 million uninsured do as Cambodians do.

Reid interviewed doctors, politicians, patients, and experts in each country he visited. Everyone had gripes, and all the systems he examined were struggling with rising costs. But countries with universal coverage differ from the U.S. in a striking way—they accept that everyone has a right to medical care and, out of fairness, one system should apply to all. America must ask itself, Reid writes: "Should society guarantee health care the way we guarantee the right to think and pray as you like, to get an education, to vote in free elections? Or is medicine a commodity to be bought and sold?"

The Healing of America could have been a policy-heavy slog, but Reid manages to keep it low on wonkery, crisply paced, and seriously incisive. As for his shoulder, it's much better and remains titanium-free.

[wkmac]

An interview on the US health care crisis with Dr. Mary Ruwart, http://www.ruwart.com. Mary J. Ruwart, Ph.D. is a former pharmaceutical research scientist and Assistant Professor of Surgery. She has worked extensively with the disadvantaged in low-income housing and was a contender for the 1992 Libertarian Party Vice-Presidential nomination. Her scientific, political, and community activities have been profiled in several prestigious biographical works, including American Men and Women of Sciences, World's Who's Who of Women, International Leaders in Achievement, and Community Leaders of America.

YouTube- US Health Care in Crisis - An Interview with Dr. Mary Ruwart by Freedomain Radio

YouTube- US Health Care in Crisis - An Interview with Dr. Mary Ruwart by Freedomain Radio

[Jones]

The real deficit hawks

Critics decry the healthcare bill as fiscally irresponsible. Where's the outrage over the defense budget?
By David Sirota
Nov. 14, 2009 |
Let's say you're a congressperson or "tea party" leader looking to champion deficit reduction -- a cause 38 percent of Americans tell pollsters they support. And let's say you're deciding whether to back two pieces of imminent legislation.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the first bill's spending provisions cost $100 billion annually and its tax and budget-cutting provisions recoup $111 billion annually, thus reducing total federal expenditures by $11 billion each year. The second bill proposes $636 billion in annual spending and recoups nothing. Over 10 years, the first bill would spend $1 trillion and recover $1.11 trillion -- a fantastic return on taxpayer investment. Meanwhile, the second bill puts us on a path to spend $6.3 trillion in the same time.

Save $110 billion, or spend $6.3 trillion? If you're explicitly claiming the mantle of fiscal prudence, this should be a no-brainer: You support the first bill and oppose the second one.

Yet, in recent months, the opposite happened.

When the House considered a healthcare expansion proposal that the CBO says will reduce the deficit by $11 billion a year, tea party protesters and Congress' self-described "fiscal conservatives" opposed it on cost grounds. At the same time, almost none of them objected when Congress passed a White House-backed bill to spend $636 billion on defense in 2010.

The hypocrisy is stunning -- lots of "budget hawk" complaints about health legislation reducing the deficit and few ”budget hawk” complaints about defense initiatives that, according to Government Executive magazine, "puts the president on track to spend more on defense, in real dollars, than any other president has in one term of office since World War II." And that estimate doesn't even count additional spending on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

So, as Bob Dole might ask, where's the public outrage at the contradiction? It's nowhere. Well, why not?

One clear answer is values -- or lack thereof. In our militaristic culture, we are taught to prioritize Pentagon spending over everything else.

Another less obvious answer is ignorance sown by skewed reporting.

The health bill's expenditures are typically described by reporters in 10-year, $1 trillion terms while defense spending is described -- if at all -- as a one-year, $636 billion outlay. That can lead citizens to think the healthcare bill will cost more than defense -- when, in fact, the 10-year comparison pits a $1 trillion healthcare bill against $6.3 trillion in projected defense spending.

But even that's not apples to apples. Political headlines of late have all been some version of Dow Jones newswire's recent screamer: "CBO Puts Health Bill Cost At $1 Trillion." That's as true as an Enron press release touting only one side of the company's ledger. Though the bill's expenditures do total $1 trillion, the CBO confirms its other provisions recover more than that, meaning headlines should read "CBO Says Health Bill Saves $110 Billion."

Not surprisingly, the media distortions are being trumpeted by the same congressional hypocrites simultaneously backing bigger Pentagon budgets and opposing health reform. Their dishonest arguments were summed up by Sen. Joe Lieberman in a Fox News interview last week. Ignoring CBO data about the health bill and the deficit, the Connecticut lawmaker (who voted for the bloated defense bill) insisted health legislation must be stopped because it will rack up "debt (that) can break America."

Only professional liars could cite concern about debt as reason to oppose a healthcare bill reducing the debt -- and then vote for debt-expanding defense budgets. Unfortunately, professional liars are the norm in today's politics, not the exception -- and they're leading America off the fiscal cliff.

© 2009 Creators.com

-- By David Sirota

[tieguy]

Originally Posted by klein

This one is for mostly for Brett !

H1N1 comparison Canada-USA !

2 min newscast :

http://www.globalnational.com/video/...dElqVze1egEwww

Just like in Hockey, we kick butt..LOL

But yes, go ahead, blame it on Obama. Poor fellow.

Your link is nothing but fluff.
Could you post the total number of swine flu deaths prior to the onset of vaccinations so we could get a better idea of how many deaths your government thinks is acceptable.

This may give us a better idea of what its like to be subject to government run health care.

[tieguy]

Originally Posted by klein

There ya go, solution solved :
Force Americans to eat less, excerise more, and stop smoking.
Maybe give everyone UPS driver's training, too. Less accidents will also lower costs.
But, darn insurance companies would just take in those excess profits, or atleast most of them.

I read your response and I'm sitting here wondering if you even clicked on wkmacs link.