IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

I have news for you. A long time ago . . . at this point, I am not certain whether it was January of 1990 or 1991 . . . I went to the now defunct Radcliffe Career Services' monthly introductory presentation. At that time, the legal profession was a complete revolving door: for every person who passed the Bar, a person left the field. While the director of the RCS did not have the statistics for medicine at hand, she said said the situation for doctors was close.

So, twenty years ago, people were leaving medicine (and law) after years of expensive training.

And it is my understanding that those clinics are structured like research universities and that the doctors there are there by invitation.

Or it could be that you simply have no idea... Just because you go to a clinic and you write a check to that clinic or that clinic bills your insurance DOES NOT mean those physicians are doing the billing. MANY MANY MANY hospitals own and operate clinics where the physicians are paid by salary, regardless of what you are billed.

As mentioned, the Mayo Clinic is just one that does such a thing. As does Heartland Regional Medical Center, Children's Mercy Medical Center, Truman Medical Center, Adventis Health Systems and several others.

How is it you came to this understanding?

Physicians can be "private" and own their own practice but still have privileges at a hospital. In these cases that physician bills you directly. However, physicians may also work directly for the hospital (but not necessarily IN the hospital) where you may be billed by his clinic or the hospital. In either case, the money still goes to the hospital. This is increasingly the case because it's becoming more difficult for physicians to maintain private practice if they accept medicaid and medicare.

Do you feel this way when it comes to union workers...like the Philadelphia bus drivers who I complained about sometime last year?

I remember posting something similar to what you just posted, and I think you were one of the people who disagreed with me and supported their strike (during the worst economy in decades).

I don't know if this has been posted, but it well illustrates the fact that the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress have little regard for the opinions of the American people. The health care reform is a prime example of the Democrats ignoring the American people. I hope this issue helps build the very deserved tide of absolute and utter rejection of Democrats in the fall elections.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

"Sixty percent (60%) favor repeal of the nation’s new health care law. Sixty-two percent (62%) believe the law will increase the federal budget deficit, 58% say it will raise cost of care, and 51% think it will hurt the quality of care."

Why Donald Berwick is Dangerous to Your Health

There are some on here that say we should emulate the Canadian healthcare system.

Since its going broke, I dont think that would be a good idea.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100531/hl_nm/us_health_3

The great Canadian free health care system is failing and no liberal wants to comment... what a surprise

As far as I remeber, there were a couple of responses, not only be me, which pointed at the advantages and disadvantages of various different health care systems.
The Canadian is just one, but certainly not the best of all the existing health care systems.

I have pointed out that this forum is full of testimonials for the Canadian . . . the French . . . the English health care systems. It has just as many condemnations of the same systems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa69puS7J0Q

The point is clear... single payer health care systems are toxic.

It is no secret that single payer government run health care is Obama's end game.

okie says:


I certainly hope so.

It's the sane thing to do.

Let me reiterate the statistics once again. We have a sample of seventeen or eighteen single-payer systems, which have for the most part been in operation for half a century or so, and in at least one case for more than a century, so we know pretty clearly what they do.

Single-payer systems cost around HALF what the United States pays per capita. They consume a fraction of GDP of what the US system does. They have better public health metrics. There are US public health metrics which put us down with some third world countries. People do not go bankrupt because of unexpected medical expenses, which are the major cause of personal bankruptcies in the US, even though the majority of those bankrupts had health insurance. Single payer citizens are not dropped from coverage when they need it most because of some minor pre-existing condition, nor are they denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. They all have longer life expectancies than US citizens do (depending on the year, we're somewhere in the forties in the ranking of life expectancies). Patient satisfaction with single payer systems is higher than in the US. Doctor-patient ratios are better in single payer systems than in the US. Administrative costs in single-payer systems are a small fraction of what they are in the US, oone of the reasons they cost far less.

The Canadian system isn't failing, as H2Oboy thinks. Its costs are simply rising, just like US costs are. The article one of the nay-sayers posted soewhere previously cited rises of 6% annually in Canada. Since their per-patient costs are around 60% of ours, that's an actual dollar amount of a bit less than 4% of American costs. When was the last time US health care costs rose LESS THAN 4% a year? Remember those premium rises in parts of the US between 10 and 20% this year?

The statistics are readily available. I've posted them enough already.

Is this some mythical "nanny state" or simple sanity? Single payer has been proven over decades to work. It works better. It works cheaper. Who cares if you think it's "socialism"?

A government big enough to take care of you is big enough to enslave you and take your freedoms away. And one of my freedoms, MJ, is to work all of my life to enable myself to have an excellent health insurance plan for me and my family. Its called citizenship, MJ, read about it, so that next time you won't vote for a guy that wants to take it away from us. I would rather be a citizen than a subject. How about you?

Do you allege that people who live in countries which have socialized or single-payer health care are not, in fact, citizens of those countries? I think that they - and reality - would disagree with your rhetoric strongly.

Cycloptichorn

Sure they are citizens. The point I am making is that we have failed miserably in this country to teach citizenship and to teach that freedom and liberty carries with it a responsibility. If you would prefer sacrificing freedom and liberty in favor of allowing the government to direct your entire life and to take care of you, then that is your choice, but it isn't mine and it wasn't what the founders of the country or the constitution had in mind. And when you mandate everyone be taken care of by the government, you are taking away what I believe the constitution guarantees me, my liberty, and I won't shut up about it.

So, you think that citizens of other countries, who have socialized or single-payer health care, do not enjoy 'freedom or liberty?' I think they - and reality - would strongly disagree with that assessment.

Cycloptichorn