I wager that a liver transplant in the USA is over $125,000. Thus, most who can buy a car can expect to turn yellow in short order.
Advocate wrote:I wager that a liver transplant in the USA is over $125,000. Thus, most who can buy a car can expect to turn yellow in short order.
Not so, as I've seen several homeless alcoholics receive free liver transplants at some of Harvard's finest Boston area medical hospitals.
There's an article in today's San Jose Merc's Editorial page about how people in countries with universal health care must wait months.
This only goes to show how ignorant Americans really are; they do not wait "months." Also, they "get" health care; that's better than "never."
DUH!
Same thing probably happens here in Orange County at UCI Medical Center, that is if you are a homeless alcoholic, If you are on minimum wage, the HMO insurance co-pay could bankrupt you, especially if the insurance company is out-of-state and unregulated by California law. That is, after you've waited for months, maybe even over a year, for a transplant. Guess what, those who can just pay the $125,000.00 up front get served first.
I had a client who owns a business but is insured by the HMO for his company and waited nearly a year for a hip replacement while on crutches the entire time. He's in his early forties.
cicerone imposter wrote:There's an article in today's San Jose Merc's Editorial page about how people in countries with universal health care must wait months.
This only goes to show how ignorant Americans really are; they do not wait "months." Also, they "get" health care; that's better than "never."
DUH!
So all of those people interviewed in "Dead Meat" were lying? Is that what you are claiming?
fishin, Where did I ever claim that? Show me!
fishin, FYI, nothing is perfect. We must live with that reality.
Right in your post that I quoted.
c.i. :
to clarify what miller wrote re. "free livertransplants" :
please observe in this order please :
1) become homeless (does one need to register as homeless ?) ,
2) become an alcoholic (will the alcohol be supplied free of charge ?) .
makes me wonder why harvard wouldn't offer free livertransplants to all those people that are not homeless alcoholics since they would likely become healthy citizens contributing to the economy again
just wondering .
hbg
This is what I found on "Dead meat."
Dead Meat (2004)
Director:Conor McMahon
Writer:Conor McMahon
Release Date:December 2004 (Ireland) more
Genre:Horror / Action / Comedy more
Tagline:It's not what you eat, it's who you eat!
Plot Outline:An infection spreads from slaughtered animals to humans, which causes the dead to rise and feed on the living. more
Plot Synopsis:This plot synopsis is empty. Add a synopsis
Plot Keywords:Zombie Child / Blood / Zombie / Decapitation / Gore
User Comments:Surprisingly decent zombie gore comedy. more
I'm sorry, but I don't see the connection.
fishin, Rather than relying on "one" report, I'd rather see both the pros and cons of universal health care.
From SFGate.
IN CRITICAL CONDITION: HEALTH CARE IN AMERICA
CANADA'S WAY
What a universal health care system delivers, good and bad
Barry Brown, Chronicle Foreign Service
Thursday, October 14, 2004
(10-14) 04:00 PDT Toronto -- Discovering he had colon cancer came as a shock to John Kioussis, but after 10 days in the hospital, attended by a battery of medical specialists, technicians, nurses and other staff, his bill came to less than $85 in American dollars -- and that was only for his phone and cable TV.
Under Canada's government-funded health insurance system, Kioussis' care, from the first visit to a family doctor, through visits to two specialists of his choice and his hospital stay, was free, paid for by Ontario's publicly funded universal health coverage.
"When you're sick like that and off work, the last thing you want to worry about is how to pay the bill," said Kioussis, 55. "I had excellent care and one of the top specialists in the country, the same doctor who would treat the prime minister."
That's the side of Canadian health care familiar to many Americans -- a system that provides free cradle-to-grave treatment to all, regardless of income or employment status.
The fact is, though, that Canada's system is riddled with problems, many stemming from inadequate funding. As a result, delays of several months are common before seeing a specialist or getting nonemergency surgery.
For his part, Kioussis said the month he waited between seeing his family doctor and his surgery did not seem unreasonable. He admitted, though, that because of a personal connection between his brother and the surgeon, the doctor operated on him just before he left for vacation.
Although delays and other problems have caused support to dip slightly, Canadians still overwhelmingly back their universal health program. They think of their health care system as a mark of their national identity, something that separates them from Americans.
Meanwhile, a recent ABC News poll showed that while Americans value the quality of U.S. health care, 62 percent think the nation should shift to a universal health insurance program like Canada's.
As a result of the sharply differing approaches Canada and the United States have taken toward financing health care, their medical systems have developed in contrasting ways.
The United States has more hospital beds per person than Canada because most American hospitals are private, while almost all Canadian hospitals are publicly funded. As a result, American hospitals compete for patients, while Canadian hospitals "don't fund excess capacity," said Sharon Sholzberg-Gray, chief executive of the Canadian Healthcare Association.
By many measures, Canadians are healthier than Americans, with a longer lifespan and lower infant mortality, even though they spend much less on medical care. Canadians devote about 10 percent of their gross domestic product, the total of a nation's goods and services, to provide full health coverage for all citizens. American health costs account for about 14 percent of GDP, yet 45 million Americans have no health insurance and many more have limited coverage.
One of the main culprits pushing up the cost of care in the United States is the expense of administering a plethora of complicated health plans. It has been estimated that any large health insurer in a midsize U.S. state spends more on administration than is spent on health administration in all Canada.
Dr. Catherine Kurosu is a gynecologist at two San Diego hospitals. A Canadian, she said the biggest differences between the two systems are that poorer Americans won't seek medical care until their problems have become serious. In addition, she said, American insurers often play games to avoid paying bills.
I don't think that universal health care should be copied from any other country. It's not much different than an new technology in computers. At least you need a Beta version that diligently tries to correct the downsides of those systems. HMO's were a bad idea creating a world of red tape that possibly will take another decade to fix. More government oversight is needed and a national plan would be workable if its left up to the states and/or counties to administrate it. I don't believe there's been enough think tanks on this -- Hillary's secret plan was one of the biggest mistakes of the Clinton Administration. It's was close to being their iceberg.
c.i. wrote :
Quote:...his bill came to less than $85 in American dollars ...
i should add that in ontario we have to pay an annual health-premium (part of provincial income tax) of anywhere from zero to $900 per year , additionaly , part of federal and provincial income and sales taxes are used to finance the health care system ( and which we gladly pay !) .
the biggest complaint ontario's medical professionals have that too much money is being spent to send some patients to the united states for special treatment rather then spending that money to beef up the ontario health system further - but things are improving ... slowly .
while several years ago many canadian patients were sent to the united states for hip replacement operations , i understand that pretty well all these operations are now being performed "in-house" - at about 1/3 the cost of sending paients to the united states .
the alberta hospital association has now set up a hospital that specializes in hip and knee relacements "on an assembly line basis " . from what i've read , it has brought down waiting times and cost and resulted in much speedier recovery for those patients .
one of our two local hospitals has set up a similar "assembly line" for cataract surgeries . two mornings a week are set aside for such surgery .
my wife recently had cataract surgery done on both her eyes and the actual operation was done in less than twenty minutes - quite amazing we thought !
(she can now watch TV and read without eyeglasses while i'm struggling with bifocals !)
the way i see it :
the canadian/ontario health provider system is by NO MEANS PERFECT !
but it seems that the vast majority of patients (99.5 % ?) get treated in a timely fashion - have to improve things on the remaining .5% IMO .
always helps to have a good family physiciann who can make the referrals to a good specialist speedily !
probably the best known clinic for "assembly line" medical procedures is toronto's
SHOULDICE CLINIC where thousands of (as they call it) "repair of of abdominal wall hernias" have been performed on the poor and the rich (arabian sheiks and princes are fairly often seen among the patients) over the years .
GOOD HEALTH TO ALL - POOR AND RICH !
hbg
Things like cataract operations are done by local eye-doctors: here, in my town, five out of the seven or eight practising do it regularily. (The one, who did my mother's, does about 1,500 per year, and you have to wait about three weeks for an operation date (not a consution: if t's urgent, you get it at once!).
California has a whole system of hospital alternatives for various operations that can be done "assembly line." Of course, they are used by HMO's, Medicare and MediCal. UCI Medical Center is where one is taken without insurance on MediCal and it has a better reputation than many independent hospital, although there are few left that haven't been gobbled up by conglomerate corporations. I don't believe any of these hospitals make a profit, at least none I know of in my area, and most are non-profit to begin with. What I've heard first hand from my clients who are doctors is that the HMO's make the profit by making deals with the hospitals and doctors. The deals with the pharmaceuticals is, of course, obvious -- those corporations make the most profit from mass production of drugs. I don't believe there could ever be an extensive and comprehensive study of how the system affects the quality of treatment. I can come up with cases I know where the treatment hasn't been very good, but sometimes not good at all, and some where it's been good. I've never heard anyone rate the care as excellent. I do belong to a medical group that has the second highest rating in California (I'd have to look up what organization is rating the medical group performance).
Lightwizard wrote:I don't think that universal health care should be copied from any other country. It's not much different than an new technology in computers. At least you need a Beta version that diligently tries to correct the downsides of those systems. HMO's were a bad idea creating a world of red tape that possibly will take another decade to fix. More government oversight is needed and a national plan would be workable if its left up to the states and/or counties to administrate it. I don't believe there's been enough think tanks on this -- Hillary's secret plan was one of the biggest mistakes of the Clinton Administration. It's was close to being their iceberg.
Why reinvent the wheel. Say we adopted the German plan, we could make changes that might make the plan more amenable to our society. Further, Hillarycare would have been excellent, and our healthcare would be in great shape had it been adopted. BTW, AARP initially endorsed it, but later chickened out in the face of the vicious Rep campaign.
'Cause you need to get it passed. It's a government where a compromise between the opposing factions will get a program up-and-running and it isn't different in any government based on a democracy. MediCal works pretty well in this state but there does need to be some central plan that outlines what the state agencies should look like. They would get government funds just like the schools if they are run efficiently and show that they are making a difference in getting health care to children, the poor working class who can't get insurance because they can't afford it and because small businesses can't afford it (or, obviously, say they can't afford it). The small businesses could put money into a statewide program which could be matched by Federal funds. Something like that. Any plans needs details worked out and I don't believe Walter is saying the German plan is anywhere near perfection. Ultimately, whether working ideas are based on the German healthcare system, it still has to get through the Congress, the Senate and the President. Obviously, during the hobbled duck era we are in now, nothing's going to happen. I don't believe free healthcare for all is a good mantra to sell, but if you can't afford good healthcare, you should be helped by a much better safety net than we currently have.
That's the reason why I think we need to look at all the existing universal health plans and create one that takes the best from all of them.
If we're already spending the most for health care, but the results tell us our health isn't the best in longivity and infant mortality, something has to change.
Most of the scare stories about universal health care only creates fear without the basis for balance and results. .
It needs to be fixed.
