65
   

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2007 07:23 am
The Dallas Morning News asks today, if Canadian care is a curfor the USA:

Quote:
These are the two faces of the Canadian health system: All 33 million Canadians, regardless of income, get hospital and doctor care as a civic right. But the health program leaves patients waiting - sometimes more than a year - for surgeries, diagnostic tests and appointments with specialists.

One in seven Americans lacks health insurance and faces falling into a medical and financial abyss if they become seriously ill. That is not a worry in Canada.

Though rare, some Canadians have faced deadly consequences while waiting for medical care. That is usually not a worry for insured Americans.

Canada's wait times and America's uninsured drag both nations down in international surveys measuring the performance of health care systems.

A survey released in May by the New York-based Commonwealth Fund comparing six countries ranked the United States sixth and Canada fifth. (Britain and Germany came in first and second, with Australia and New Zealand tied for third.)

Still, Canadians live longer, have lower rates of infant mortality and suffer fewer preventable deaths than Americans. Canada has fewer doctors and MRI machines, but more nurses and hospital beds.

Another big difference between the systems: the cost. The United States spends far more per person on health care ($7,498 a year) than does Canada ($4,548), according to the latest numbers available from both governments.




But as said numerous times here: there a lot more (and different) systems out in the world ...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2007 10:58 am
The key as far as I'm concerned is that all Canadians have health insurance, and they have access to medical care. Those in the US without health insurance don't have access to the medical care they might need.

I prefer the Canadian system over the US system 24/7. No health care is scary for any parent with children without health care, and those parents without health insurance are doomed if they have any health problems.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2007 12:13 pm
The U.S. Is Unhappy with Its Health Care

By Catherine Arnst Thu Nov 1, 8:08 AM ET

In a freshly minted radio commercial, Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani boasts, "We have the best health-care system in the world." It's an oft-heard refrain from politicians and policymakers. Patients beg to differ.


According to a survey published on Nov. 1 in the journal Health Affairs, one-third of U.S. adults believe that the U.S. health-care system has to be rebuilt completely -- double the percentage who want a dramatic overhaul in the six other nations whose residents took part in the survey. The U.S. ranked dead last on the question whether more than minor system changes were needed.

The nonpartisan New York City-based Commonwealth Fund, which studies health-care issues, interviewed 12,000 adults in Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Britain, Australia, and the U.S. this spring to get a handle on actual patient experiences and perceptions. The results paint a damning picture of user satisfaction with the American health-care system and could provide fodder in a Presidential campaign where health care is expected to play a major role (BusinessWeek.com, 9/17/07). All the countries in the survey except the U.S. have universal health coverage, and the percentage of GDP the U.S. spends on medical care is about twice as high as the other six.
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2007 04:35 pm
Just a note that Advocat's post titles "Prostate and Prejudices" points out that Rudy's number have no source, but then the author doesn't offer any sorces for his either...
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2007 05:39 pm
from walter's post :

Quote:
Another big difference between the systems: the cost. The United States spends far more per person on health care ($7,498 a year) than does Canada ($4,548), according to the latest numbers available from both governments.


there is no doubt in my mind that canada's health-system is in need of additional monies - through increased premiums , higher taxes or allocation of money from the large federal surplus .

the canadian government had another record surplus of $13.8 BILLION ! for 200/2007. so there should be plenty of money to give the healthcare-system a shot in the arm .
unfortunately our conservative government has decided instead to cut the general sales tax by 1% and reduce personal and corporate income taxes . while most economists and even the banks have decried these cuts as "economically unsound" and feeding inflation , the government - which is in a minority position - is trying to make political hay !

that money should go into the infrastructure , better education and health-care .

unfortunately many citizens seem think they'd rather pay $200 less when buying a $20,000 car than having an improved health-care system Evil or Very Mad ! - but they complain when they have to wait for a hospital bed !

we had a similar problem in ontario several years ago when the provincial conservative government gave taxpayers a $200 TAX DIVIDEND - and shortly thereafter started to cut admission to medical schools , gave less money to hospitals ... ...
voters seem to have a VERY SHORT MEMORY , i'm sorry to say .

perhaps citizens should only be allowed a vote after they have passed some tests in basic economics !
hbg
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2007 06:14 pm
hbg, That's why there is so much confusion not only by consumers but also by our politicians. All those mixed-messages end up having the negative consequences for all citizens - not only in Canada, but also in the US.

The majority of Americans want something done with our health care system, but the politicians can't agree on what to do.

Voters are part of the problem as well as our politicians.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Nov, 2007 06:35 pm
c.i. wrote :

Quote:
hbg, That's why there is so much confusion not only by consumers but also by our politicians. All those mixed-messages end up having the negative consequences for all citizens - not only in Canada, but also in the US.

The majority of Americans want something done with our health care system, but the politicians can't agree on what to do.

Voters are part of the problem as well as our politicians.


imo it's the politicians who should tell the voters what choice they have - of course , they don't !

the politicians treat the voters like children who are being offered candy . of course the kids (the voters) like the candy , not realizing that their teeth are going to rot !
since voters are adults , they should know better ... Crying or Very sad
politicians are very adept at treating the voters as suckers - perhaps they deserve it .
unfortunately some will suffer the consequences of shortsighted policies .
makes me want to cry !
HELP !
hbg
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Nov, 2007 04:13 pm


"This is a very puzzling disconnect," said Dr. JoAnn Manson, chief of preventive medicine at Harvard's Brigham and Women's Hospital. "That is a conundrum."

It was the second study by the same government scientists who two years ago first suggested that deaths from being too fat were overstated. The new report further analyzed the same data, this time looking at specific causes of death along with new mortality figures from 2004 for 2.3 million U.S. adults.

"Excess weight does not uniformly increase the risk of mortality from any and every cause, but only from certain causes," said the study's lead author Katherine Flegal, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Nov, 2007 04:44 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:




I wish it told you which ones.
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Nov, 2007 11:12 am
cicerone imposter wrote:


"This is a very puzzling disconnect," said Dr. JoAnn Manson, chief of preventive medicine at Harvard's Brigham and Women's Hospital. "That is a conundrum."

It was the second study by the same government scientists who two years ago first suggested that deaths from being too fat were overstated. The new report further analyzed the same data, this time looking at specific causes of death along with new mortality figures from 2004 for 2.3 million U.S. adults.

"Excess weight does not uniformly increase the risk of mortality from any and every cause, but only from certain causes," said the study's lead author Katherine Flegal, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


Funny how you bolded that sentence but didn't bother with the contrary evidence. Let me help...

Quote:


There is also the possibility, since the source is not actually provided, that these people that are "25lbs overweight" are not *fat* but instead have greater musculature. I know that I am one of the people this is probably meant to refute, so in case I didn't make it clear (although I figured it would be common sense), let me say that when I spoke about "overweight" people, I meant people that are overweight due to excess body fat.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Nov, 2007 02:45 pm
from c.i.'s post :

Quote:
However, having a little extra weight actually seemed to help people survive some illnesses



nothing new really . when i worked in the life insurance business - untill the mid-eighties - SLIGHTLY overweight insurance applicants that were otherwise healthy were always given the same mortality rating as those with standard weight .
UNDERWEIGHT applicants , however , were usually given a BELOW standard rating - unles it was marginal .
the insurance mortality tables went back for decades and must have been pretty accurate , considering the profits mada by insurance companies :wink: .
(i remember meeting a scottish actuariy who told me that abstainers made a poor insurance risk . he thought that there must be something seriously wrong with anyone refusing a scotch :wink: ) .
hbg
hbg
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Nov, 2007 10:15 am
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Nov, 2007 10:46 am
i'm not about to paste the entire article from above...
but, how is it "clueless" to suggest that everyone does have access to health care at an ED ? it's true.

and the fact that some people may not know they are qualified for medicare/medicaid is not the fault of the health care system. that is their own responsibility.

i don't see any issue with claiming the actual number of uninsured citizens of the us is well below the 47 M claimed. the assertion that a sizable number are illegal aliens is perfectly valid. and again, people not knowing that they are entitled to the medicare/medicaid programs can hardly be included in this. they need to take the time to find out.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Nov, 2007 10:54 am
USAFHokie80 wrote:
i'm not about to paste the entire article from above...
but, how is it "clueless" to suggest that everyone does have access to health care at an ED ? it's true.

The reason it's clueless is not that it's false -- it isn't. The reason is clueless is the underlying assumption that access to emergency rooms is adequate coverage.

USAFHokie80 wrote:
and the fact that some people may not know they are qualified for medicare/medicaid is not the fault of the health care system. that is their own responsibility.

Ditto.
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Nov, 2007 10:57 am
Thomas wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
i'm not about to paste the entire article from above...
but, how is it "clueless" to suggest that everyone does have access to health care at an ED ? it's true.

The reason it's clueless is not that it's false -- it isn't. The reason is clueless is the underlying assumption that access to emergency rooms is adequate coverage.


i can understand that. but, i guess you get what you pay for.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Nov, 2007 11:26 am
USAFHokie80 wrote:
i can understand that. but, i guess you get what you pay for.

I think that's the basic moral question. Should you get what you pay for when it comes to healthcare? If your medical bills get higher than what you can afford, should you go without needed medical care? Or should basic medical care be a right, and should you get it for this reason alone, whether you can pay for it or not? Krugman assumes the latter, and most Americans seem to agree with him. By about a 2:1 margin, they say in polls it's "the government's responsibility to provide health insurance for those who can't afford it."
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Nov, 2007 01:20 pm
Thomas wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
i can understand that. but, i guess you get what you pay for.

I think that's the basic moral question. Should you get what you pay for when it comes to healthcare? If your medical bills get higher than what you can afford, should you go without needed medical care? Or should basic medical care be a right, and should you get it for this reason alone, whether you can pay for it or not? Krugman assumes the latter, and most Americans seem to agree with him. By about a 2:1 margin, they say in polls it's "the government's responsibility to provide health insurance for those who can't afford it."


basic medical care is provided via EDs. if someone is in acute medical distress, he or she can get free care at any emergency department. and the government does provide coverage for those who can't afford it.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Nov, 2007 01:32 pm
USAFHokie80 wrote:
basic medical care is provided via EDs. if someone is in acute medical distress, he or she can get free care at any emergency department. and the government does provide coverage for those who can't afford it.

The government provides coverage for poor people. But a good number of chronic diseases -- kidney failure, some forms of epilepsy, and others -- are so expensive they exceed even the budget of middle class families, who aren't covered by Medicaid.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Nov, 2007 01:34 pm
Health insurers make money out of screwing over their clients to the maximum amount they will deal with.

Quote:
Health insurer tied bonuses to dropping sick policyholders

By Lisa Girion
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

November 9, 2007

One of the state's largest health insurers set goals and paid bonuses based in part on how many individual policyholders were dropped and how much money was saved.

Woodland Hills-based Health Net Inc. avoided paying $35.5 million in medical expenses by rescinding about 1,600 policies between 2000 and 2006. During that period, it paid its senior analyst in charge of cancellations more than $20,000 in bonuses based in part on her meeting or exceeding annual targets for revoking policies, documents disclosed Thursday showed.

The revelation that the health plan had cancellation goals and bonuses comes amid a storm of controversy over the industry-wide but long-hidden practice of rescinding coverage after expensive medical treatments have been authorized.


These cancellations have been the recent focus of intense scrutiny by lawmakers, state regulators and consumer advocates. Although these "rescissions" are only a small portion of the companies' overall business, they typically leave sick patients with crushing medical bills and no way to obtain needed treatment.

Most of the state's major insurers have cancellation departments or individuals assigned to review coverage applications. They typically pull a policyholder's records after major medical claims are made to ensure that the client qualified for coverage at the outset.

The companies' internal procedures for reviewing and canceling coverage have not been publicly disclosed. Health Net's disclosures Thursday provided an unprecedented peek at a company's internal operations and marked the first time an insurer had revealed how it linked cancellations to employee performance goals and to its bottom line.

The bonuses were disclosed at an arbitration hearing in a lawsuit brought by Patsy Bates, a Gardena hairdresser whose coverage was rescinded by Health Net in the middle of chemotherapy treatments for breast cancer. She is seeking $6 million in compensation, plus damages.

Insurers maintain that cancellations are necessary to root out fraud and keep premiums affordable. Individual coverage is issued to only the healthiest applicants, who must disclose preexisting conditions.

Other suits have been settled out of court or through arbitration, out of public view. Until now, none had gone to a public trial.

Health Net had sought to keep the documents secret even after it was forced to produce them for the hearing, arguing that they contained proprietary information and could embarrass the company. But the arbitrator in the case, former Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Sam Cianchetti, granted a motion by lawyers for The Times, opening the hearing to reporters and making public all documents produced for it.

At a hearing on the motion, the judge said, "This clearly involves very significant public interest, and my view is the arbitration proceedings should not be confidential."

The documents show that in 2002, the company's goal for Barbara Fowler, Health Net's senior analyst in charge of rescission reviews, was 15 cancellations a month. She exceeded that, rescinding 275 policies that year -- a monthly average of 22.9.

More recently, her goals were expressed in financial terms. Her supervisor described 2003 as a "banner year" for Fowler because the company avoided about "$6 million in unnecessary health care expenses" through her rescission of 301 policies -- one more than her performance goal.

In 2005, her goal was to save Health Net at least $6.5 million. Through nearly 300 rescissions, Fowler ended up saving an estimated $7 million, prompting her supervisor to write: "Barbara's successful execution of her job responsibilities have been vital to the profitability" of individual and family policies.


State law forbids insurance companies from tying any compensation for claims reviewers to their claims decisions.

But Health Net's lawyer, William Helvestine, told the arbitrator in his opening argument Thursday that the law did not apply to the insurer in the case because Fowler was an underwriter -- not a claims reviewer.

Helvestine acknowledged that the company tied some of Fowler's compensation to policy cancellations, including Bates'. But he maintained that the bonuses were based on the overall performance of Fowler and the company. He also said that meeting the cancellation target was only a small factor.

The documents showed that Fowler's annual bonuses ranged from $1,654 to $6,310. But Helvestine said that no more than $276 in any year was connected to cancellations.

He said Fowler's supervisor, Mark Ludwig, set goals that were reasonable based on the prior year's experience.

"I think it is insulting to those individuals to make this the focal point of this case," Helvestine said.

Bates' lawyer, William Shernoff, said Health Net's behavior was "reprehensible."

He said the cancellation goals and financial rewards showed that the company canceled policies in bad faith and just to save money. After all, he told the arbitrator, canceling policies was Fowler's primary job.

"For management to set goals in advance to achieve a certain number of rescissions and target savings in the millions of dollars at the expense of seriously ill patients is cruel and reprehensible by any standards of law or decency," Shernoff said.

The company declined requests to make Fowler available to discuss the reviews.

Cianchetti, the arbitrator, earlier ruled the rescission invalid because Health Net had mishandled the way it sent Bates the policy when it issued coverage. At the end of the hearing, it will be up to Cianchetti to determine whether Health Net acted in bad faith and owes Bates any damages.

The disclosures surprised regulators. A spokesman said state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner was troubled by the allegations.

"Commissioner Poizner has made it clear he will not tolerate illegal rescissions," spokesman Byron Tucker said. "We are going to take a hard and close look at this case."

In recent months, the state's health and insurance regulators have teamed to develop rules aimed at curbing rescissions and to more closely monitor the industry's cancellation policies.

Other insurers that have rescission operations, including Blue Cross of California and Blue Shield of California, said they had no similar policies linking employee performance reviews to rescission levels. Blue Cross said it conducted audits to ensure that claims reviewers were not given any "carrots" for canceling coverage.

Bates, who filed the suit against Health Net, owns a hair salon in a Gardena mini-mall between a liquor store and a doughnut shop. She said she was left with nearly $200,000 in medical bills and stranded in the midst of chemotherapy when Health Net canceled her coverage in January 2004.

Bates, 51, said the first notice she had that something was awry with her coverage came while she was in the hospital preparing for lump-removal surgery.

She said an administrator came to her room and told her the surgery, scheduled for early the next day, had been canceled because the hospital learned she had insurance problems. Health Net allowed the surgery to go forward only after Bates' daughter authorized the insurance company to charge three months of premiums in advance to her debit card, Bates alleged. Her coverage was canceled after she began post-surgical chemotherapy threatments.

"I've got cancer, and I could die," she said in a recent interview. Health Net "walked away from the agreement. They don't care."

Health Net contended that Bates failed to disclose a heart problem and shaved about 35 pounds off her weight on her application. Had it known her true weight or that she had been screened for a heart condition related to her use of the diet drug combination known as fen-phen, it would not have covered her in the first place, the company said.

"The case was rescinded based on inaccurate information on the individual's application," Health Net spokesman Brad Kieffer said.

Bates said she already had insurance when a broker came by her shop in the summer of 2003, and said she now regretted letting him in the door. She agreed to apply to Health Net when the broker told her he could save her money, Bates said.

She added that she never intended to mislead the company. Bates said the broker filled out the application, asking questions about her medical history as she styled a client's hair in her busy shop and he talked to another client waiting for an appointment at the counter. She maintained that she answered his questions as best she could and did not know whether he asked every question on the application.

Bates' chemotherapy was delayed for four months until it was funded through a program for charity cases. Three years later, she can't afford the tests she needs to determine whether the cancer is gone.

So she is left to worry. She is also left with a catheter embedded in her chest where the chemotherapy drugs were injected into her bloodstream. Bates said she found a physician willing to remove it without charge, but he won't do it without a clear prognosis. That remains uncertain.

Shernoff, Bates' lawyer, claimed that the performance goals for Fowler showed that Health Net was bent on finding any excuse to cancel the coverage of people like Bates to save money.

"I haven't seen this kind of thing for years," Shernoff said. "It doesn't get much worse."

[email protected]


Do you get it, Hokie?

The insurers rely upon not helping people to stay profitable. Period.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Nov, 2007 01:44 pm
Thomas wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
basic medical care is provided via EDs. if someone is in acute medical distress, he or she can get free care at any emergency department. and the government does provide coverage for those who can't afford it.

The government provides coverage for poor people. But a good number of chronic diseases -- kidney failure, some forms of epilepsy, and others -- are so expensive they exceed even the budget of middle class families, who aren't covered by Medicaid.


yes, that's true. but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. the government can't be responsible for every need of every person.

suppose i had a child with a condition that required medical care far surpassing my income - then what? is the government supposed to cover all of that for me, even if i do earn enough to pay for basic health care ?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 07/29/2025 at 06:18:16