IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Yes--it looked a bit wobbly to me too.

I don't think UHC is a possibility under the political system in the US. Is anybody actually in charge of domestic matters?

The people who rant about all powerful central bureaucracy do not seem to allow for that being what is required in an advanced technological society.

But the health and happiness of a nation is a military matter as was discovered in the 19th century when few men were fit to fight.

The robber barons who had ground the faces of the poor were defenceless. That is where welfare reform came from.

That reminds me of our former VP, Dan Quayle, who rejected Belgian endives in favor of good old American food.

From Reuters.

A quite informative comment by someone, who really can compare the US health insurances and the NHS from experiences:
American healthcare is in truth already rationed

In the very general sense of the article, health care is rationed everywhere already - if not by government or insurance companies, then by the availability of services or basic economic factors. So what's the point?

The fact is that a very large number of Americans don't want their health care rationed or managed by their government.

Actually, I'm not sure if I wanted such, too. (But only because I think, we do better here than the NHS ... I might have a a totally different view different view, if I were a UK-citizen.)

I would welcome insurance reform that enabled insurance providers to compete nationally, thus enabling much more competition. In addition new standards could be established with respect to prior health conditions, and the portability of coverage as people change jobs and employers. Indeed I believe most people here would welcome this kind of reform.

Unfortunately this is not the intention of this Administration: they want government provided care for their constituents; they want others (and our grandchildren) to pay for it; and they want to manage the allocation of services to everyone else.

A different view - at the first glance - in the Times: USA versus the NHS




An interesting addendum: the Times report mentions the Dutch system as an example. It changed there some years ago. As a result, doctors here in the German border regions have about 50% Dutch patients, because here you can go to a specialist you like ... (as an EU-citizen, you have free health care in all EU-countries).

Actually, georgeob, any private health insurance plan is going to have some rationing included based on the amount of premium people are willing to pay. That's what insurance does with all kinds of private insurance; you pay more for cadillac programs, and less for basic programs. People's fear about "rationing" is unfounded by the facts. They surely must know when they purchase auto insurance, the premium increases with more benefits attached to them. It's not going to be any different with heath plans.

People have not thought out the consequences of what they are saying, because they parrot what they hear without doing simple basic research. They all believe a private health insurance plan without government assistance is going to all be a cadillac plan, so they mention how health plans will deny grandma full health coverage, and make her choose how she wants to die.

Finally, I also believe in the competitive market place to reduce cost. It works not only with how insurance companies treat their customers, but how doctors/hospitals treat their patients. When people have choices, and they must look at out-of-pocket costs - both for the monthly premiums paid plus they co-pays for service - competition is the best way to reduce cost and increase efficiency.

This is one of the major deficiencies that's missing from the health plan that congress is now developing.

One more thing: health insurance is age rated.

No wonder nobody comments on my posts.

Dream on you materialist barbarians.

I think this raises more questions than it answers. For example, what kind of database is the whitehouse operating, and to whom are they acting in cooperation with?

"White House Acknowledges Unsolicited E-Mails on Health Care

The White House responds following complaints from people who said they received unsolicited e-mails on health care reform from the administration."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/16/white-house-e-mail/

"The White House e-mail list is made up of e-mail addresses obtained solely through the White House Web site. The White House doesn't purchase, upload or merge from any other list, again, all e-mails come from the White House Web site as we have no interest in e-mailing anyone who does not want to receive an e-mail," the statement said. "If an individual received the e-mail because someone else or a group signed them up or forwarded the e-mail, we hope they were not too inconvenienced."

so, it's another non-event?

He's trying very hard to make it a big deal, but they love to make something out of nothing, so it's pretty much SOP for them.

Yes, I think its a big deal when the whitehouse maintains a database of political enemies.

Political enemies? How did you arrive at that conclusion?
I get emails from the white house, because I have written to them on some of my concerns.

The whitehouse snitch site has solicited emails to identify and provide information on people that are communicating opposition to their health plan, claiming it is disinformation. This activity may in fact be against the law. I need to read some more about that possibility.

Of course opponents claim, and I believe rightly so, that much of what they are saying is accurate, certainly more accurate than what the administration is putting out on their plan. The administration is the main entity engaged in disinformation. You have already admitted Obama has lied to you. Obama lies on a regular basis, he misinforms, and mischaracterizes what his proposed plan will do.

If you want some good information, forget whitehouse.gov and go to the Heritage Foundation website.

One of the pieces of many pieces of disinformation from Obama is that preventive care saves money. Investigation into this tells us otherwise, and actually using common sense we could know this as well.

"The Great Myth of Prevention “Savings”
Washington Post op-ed columnist Charles Krauthammer in a piece today takes on the myth that prevention measures will magically reduce overall health care spending and lower costs in the long run. It’s a talking point Democractic Congressional leadership and President Barack Obama have been using as the main way to pay for their proposed $1 trillion-plus health care overhaul.

But as Krauthammer explains, “like most conventional wisdom, it is wrong. Overall, preventive care increases medical costs.”

“This inconvenient truth comes, once again, from the CBO. In an Aug. 7 letter to Rep. Nathan Deal, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf writes: ‘Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness.’”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/13/AR2009081302898.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Well, okie, I am in real shock! You have finally posted something I can agree with. Prevention is over-sold by everybody, and the facts tell a different story. I think this is the first time I'm agreeing with you this year! LOL