IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

I have a long direct experience with the complacency and mediocrity of the air traffic control services of the FAA, obtained as a military pilot.

I would not voluntarily accept the services of a doctor whose values were those of that tribe.

While we do indeed have a tolerable safety record in the area of air traffic control, the numerous delays and the congestion resulting from system limitations that afflict air travel in this country are ample testimony to the inappropriateness of this as a model for something like health care. It is however a good example of what we can expect as a product of government managed health care.

i have to sat that i tend to think it better for the patient if insurance is provided by private corporations than the gov't for some of the reasons mentioned above. the patient has the ability to shop around for insurance. that's not the case with the gov't. having used government sponsored health care for a few years (military) it was one of the reasons i wanted out so badly. it is horribly inefficient and laborious to get anything done. your treatment options are sparse at best.

Do you honestly believe that the practices of the FAA reflect the values of air traffic controllers?

For your analogy to work, you would have us believe that emergency-room doctors would be lazy and inefficient, knowing that their jobs are secured by the gov't. I have a hard time believing that this is true.

Let's forget about the FAA in particular, and go back to my main point - is there a problem with recognizing the fact that some doctors, who perform emergency services, are not exactly under the same set of rules and moral obligations as others?

Cycloptichorn

Some doctors are better and more engaged than others. I am free to reject those I don't like and seek others I do. The aggregate effect of these choices tends to eliminate the worst providers and enhance the activities of the best.

The situation with air traffic controllers is quite different. I have no influence whatever on whose services I get, and, indeed, on the collective efficiency of their organization. In 1982 the Labor Union representing these controllers had convinced the American public that theirs was somehow a particularly stressful job. Partly as a result most of them were retiring on "disability" in their early '50s. I recall sitting alone in the cramped cockpit of an A-4 on a dark, bad weather night asking for radar vectors around a thunderstorm and being curtly told they "don't do that anymore". I sat there - alone at 30,000 feet and getting bumped around by the turbulence in the dark - contemplating just who was operating under unusual stress.

Soon afterwards, confronted with a strike by the Union, president Reagan fired them all - the entire system. A few hundred drafted military controllers operated the entire nationwide system for the next several months without a hitch. After 25 years the system and its organization have drifted back to their former dismal condition.

Not what I would want for my own health care.

As said already before: that's exactly what we do here - as far as possible. (That is, people go the doctors they like best and who are perhaps the best [MIL is one of the worst "doctor hoppers"] or/and go to the hospitals they like best and/or which have the best doctors [according to their opinion: again here as a worse example MIL, who travels from the West to the East and back again] I make the compromise that all has to be somewhat not to far away from home [with the exemption of some university hospitals, perhaps]...)

Doctor
If a Doctor doctors another Doctor,
can the Doctor who is doctoring
doctor the Doctor who is being doctored?
As well as the Doctor who is being doctored
doctor the Doctor who is doctoring?

As in any profession, not everybody practicing in their field of endeavor are competent.

This is interesting...

Edwards says his health plan would make it mandatory for everyone to go to the Dr.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295555,00.html

So,even if you are healthy,you MUST see the Dr,even if you dont want to.

I guess if everyone goes to see the Dr all the time it would solve every problem this country has.

Why do you oppose preventive care, MM?

I admit, it's something which stops insurance companies (here) spending more money. But actually it's not such a bad idea, I think.

this is what i read at the link given by mm :




couldn't find : "everyone goes to see the Dr all the time " at all !

imo preventative healthcare has much value .
as an example , i have my teeth cleaned and checked three times a year(as recommended by my insurer) , and for my age have pretty good teeth compared to others (touch wood !) .
our doctor checks our blood-pressure at least once a month ... and performs other "preventative" services - we are pretty happy with that .
it means that we have fewer "emergency" calls , which suits the doctor too .
(probably no different than having the car serviced regularly rather than waiting 'till the wheels fall off )
hbg

MM, maybe a shrink could help you with your attraction to excrement. Then, of course, you would no longer be known as the turdmeister.

Some people, especially those who do not want universal heath care, believe prevention is not worth the money spent.

Universal health care can be a combination of public and private insurance plans - even a combination. I'm not sure why people continue to reject the principles of universal health care when it helps a society to be more healthy and productive.

That's really unfortunate isn't it, especially when you think of how many women are alive today, because of annual mammograms and how many men are alive today, because of annual prostate exams.

People who develop otherwise preventable diseases often become a burden on society. It is similar to those who ride motorcycles without a helmet who get head injuries, and then are supported by the rest of us by paying for public care.

Thus, it is not an unfair burden to require physicals.

So what do we do about people who have chronic illness by their own doing? Do we pay for cardiac and ortho surgeries for a man who has eaten himself into obesity? Do we pay for his insulin? How about smokers? Do we pay for their inhalers, biopsies and radiation therapy? Do we pay for an alcoholic to have a liver transplant?

I vote no.

No. We educate them into healthier lifestyles that prevent health problems later on in life. Not all will listen, but for those who do, it'll save healthcare costs in multiples later on in life. It's called a "comprehensive health plan."

UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE
A lamentable achievement in this fiel in
China
India
USA.
The last country will never dare to do and the former two countries wish to do.

And what about the ones that don't listen? What about the ones that are already suffering from these illnesses? They will say they have the right to this health care as well. And you can bet they'll raise hell if they don't get it.

All of you seem to think that I am against preventative medicine, yet nothing could be further from the truth.

My intention in posting that article was to get some of you to think,but apparently you cant do that.

So,I will posit some questions about Edwards plan.

First of all,how are they gonna enforce it?
If its mandatory that everyone go to a Dr once a year,are they gonna have the medical police running around making sure everyone goes?


Next, are you willing to allow some nameless, faceless political appointee somewhere access to your medical records, so they can make sure you went to a Dr?

Next,what about those that cant go to a Dr?
They have no transportation or there is no Dr in their community, do those people get fined or arrested for not seeing a Dr?
Is the govt going to create a mandatory transportation program to make sure everyone see's a Dr?

Mysterman
"My intention in posting that article was to get some of you to think,but apparently you cant do that. "
I respect you though I radically differ .
Are you for or against universal health care?