PDA

View Full Version : National Health Care Questions



Losthwy
03-26-2011, 07:12 PM
There are many examples of national health care around the world. In fact, many if not all of the leading industrial nations have some form of it. Here are my questions.
1. Is there an example of a nation that implemented national health care that later repealed it?
2. Is there a nation that that the majority of it's citizens wish to no longer have nationalized health care after 5 plus years?
3. Does the majority of any of those nations feel that it has been a detriment to their economy or is "destructive" as Mike Huckabee suggest in a national TV ad.
4. Lastly- And this is asking for opinion. Does anyone think the majority of citizens of England, France, Japan, Taiwan, Canada or another national health care country would wish to copy their health care on the U.S. model from two years ago?

caryalsobrook
03-26-2011, 11:41 PM
There are many examples of national health care around the world. In fact, many if not all of the leading industrial nations have some form of it. Here are my questions.
1. Is there an example of a nation that implemented national health care that later repealed it?
2. Is there a nation that that the majority of it's citizens wish to no longer have nationalized health care after 5 plus years?
3. Does the majority of any of those nations feel that it has been a detriment to their economy or is "destructive" as Mike Huckabee suggest in a national TV ad.
4. Lastly- And this is asking for opinion. Does anyone think the majority of citizens of England, France, Japan, Taiwan, Canada or another national health care country would wish to copy their health care on the U.S. model from two years ago?

Let me see if I can answer your questions and then I have a few for you.

1. Yes England. Initially it started with a single payor system and has now implemented change allowing for a form of private healthcare.

2. Probably a majority of the people of the countries you speak support single payor system. But you must also realize that a majority of the people of these and other countries are basically healthy and have little need of major healthcare. Take for example Canada. While a majority like the system, those who are sick cannot purchase healthcare and are forced to do without when the government bureaucrats decide that the government will not pay for the services they desire. It is a requirement of all single payor systems that no healthcare provider be allowed to charge a patient for any treatment. As a result Canadians who are denied treatment of required to wait for a period that they are unwilling to wait flock across the border to the US to receive treatment here and are willing to pay for it. In fact some Canadians eventake health insurance that is recognized in the US for that reason.

3. It is hard to single only one aspect as the cause of finantial instability of any country but let me try to answer your question this way. Looking at contries that have a totally socialistic system, only 3 come to mind offhand. There are probably more. They are Cuba, Vietnam and North Korea. Cuba has a free healthcare system but cannot provide even minimal healthcare by US standards even Fidel Castro went to France for treatment. Vietnam, I know very little about the economic status of that country. North Korea not only don't heavany healthcare to speak of, their people are starving and would be even worse if the US quits paying them not to develop nuclear weapons. Look around the world and those countries that have chosen to go down the road of greatly expanded government and entitlements are in dire economic circumstances. Examples are Ireland, England, Greece, Spain and Portugal. There are a great many others but these should make my point.

4. Noone would deny that there are not problems with our healthcare system, but I would contend that all of us including healthcare providers of which I was one have contributed to the problem. Probably the number 1 problem that healthcare providers have created is participating in both insurance and government insurance which requires that they charge different fees for the same services depending on who reimburses them. Invariably this has caused those who are uninsured to pay a far greater fee that the others. We would be far better off had we charged the same fee based on market forces which include the cost of providing the service to ALL patients. The mindset of patients that the best insurance is that which pays all or the highest percentage of the cost of treatment also has contributed to the problem. I took 3 of my dogs for their yearly checkup last week and the charge for them was $385.00. I have 1 more to go. Most people rasie hell if they have to pay a copay at all.

I will continue on another post.

caryalsobrook
03-27-2011, 12:11 AM
I hope I have sufficiently answered your 4 questions but will be happy to answer any further questions you have.

Let me now explain some of the consequenses of a single payor system. You must realize that a single payor system is exactly what it says, that is no one can pay for healthcare except a single payor and that being the government. As a result the government may not determine the standard of care but the level and extent of care. This is the result of your not being allowed to pay for any treatment and a provider cannot accept payment from you. Hense the term single payor. The term in my opinion was created to hide the socialistic character of such a system. Another consequence is that there is no treatement as charity with such a system. No mare will an individual call a provider and tell them to treat the patient and they or a charity will pay for it, and that from my experience is not as rare as you might expect. No longer will a provider provide such treatment as only that treatment which would be above the level of care specified be necessary. If the government says it will not pay for it and the provider cannot charge a fee for the service to others then the will not provide it as a charitable service. If only the government can pay for healthcare services then it will and can set the fees for services. If the proveder is unwilling to provide the service at the set fee then the service will not be provided. but it goes farther than that. It can and will set fees to control the location that a provider musst live and work. Don't expect fees in all states and regions to be the same. Those areas they wish to force providers to work and live will have higher fees than those areas they wish to limit the number of providers. by this method it will choose who gets what level of healthcare.

I will tell you quite simply the effect it will have on me. I will no longer work for the patient, I will be working for the government. I cannot tell you what a profound effect it will have on the relationship.

It is hard to respond on this forum to a bill that has over 2000 pages so let me do it this way. Nancy Pelosi said that it had to be passed to find out what is in it which was in my opinion the most honest and intelligent thing I have heard her say and we are already seeing that she was right. Take for example the more that 1000 waivers already given and it hasn't even been implemented. Using the experience with the Patient bill of rights bill when it was passed which took at least 5 years to understand and implement, I believe this massive bill passed referred to as Obamacare could take as long as 15 years to fully be understook and implemented. If I am right you will see a stagnant economy and high unemployment and a further destruction of the middle class for that period of time. I could argue the cause of the diminishing middle class but that is another discussion.

dnf777
03-27-2011, 07:11 AM
Cary,
For all the disagreements in our past, I couldn't have said it better. (your last post)

I just paid a $307 vet bill for an emergency suturing and shots that happened to be due.
I just paid two bills for a new pair of glasses.
I just paid off 2500 in braces for my daughter.

Then my wife and I bitched up a storm because we got a 25 dollar bill from a lab for her routine gyn exam!!!

We both paused, and realized how screwed up our sense of entitlements are in this country. Most women will gladly pay 100 for a hair-do (so will some guys, I hear) but stomp feet when having to pay for a test that may prevent cervical cancer and death!

to age myslelf cary, I actually remember when we paid out of pocket for our first daughter, when the secretery saw me getting out a checkbook instead of an insurance card, she said, "wait, let me get the doc". He came back, and after a few questions, graciously reduced the price.

caryalsobrook
03-27-2011, 08:45 AM
Cary,
For all the disagreements in our past, I couldn't have said it better. (your last post)

I just paid a $307 vet bill for an emergency suturing and shots that happened to be due.
I just paid two bills for a new pair of glasses.
I just paid off 2500 in braces for my daughter.

Then my wife and I bitched up a storm because we got a 25 dollar bill from a lab for her routine gyn exam!!!

We both paused, and realized how screwed up our sense of entitlements are in this country. Most women will gladly pay 100 for a hair-do (so will some guys, I hear) but stomp feet when having to pay for a test that may prevent cervical cancer and death!

to age myslelf cary, I actually remember when we paid out of pocket for our first daughter, when the secretery saw me getting out a checkbook instead of an insurance card, she said, "wait, let me get the doc". He came back, and after a few questions, graciously reduced the price.

Thanks for the compliment. Let me say when it comes to the wealth and individual freedoms, both true liberals and conservatives want these qualities for this country like no other country. Paul Wellstone. a former senator and true liberal was one of these. We would have disagreed greatly on how you get there but he was honest and would never try to distort the facts. He could just argue his view and present the facts honestly. I do have a problem with those be they liberal or conservative that try to distort the facts in order to try to support their view. Frankly, I believe that the lack of civility today is the result of this dishonesty.
I am a conservative, actually my family calls me a tru libertarian and they are probably right. I hear the peole call themselves a fiscal conservative and social moderate(liberal to my mind), and some call themselves a conservative but then want more government regulation for what they call morality reasons. I want for all to have the oportunity to suceed and enjoy the fruits of their success(wealth is only a part of success), and I understand that with this comes also the oportunity to fail, and comes with this is the consequences of failure. You cannot have one without the other. When we have a government that above all protects individual freedoms then we have a government that allows all to succeed or fail and enjoy the fruits of their success and learn from the consequences of their failure. I certainly have experienced both and only hope that I have learned from the consequences of my failures, knowint that I should have had enough sense to avoid mosst of the failures.

sinner
03-27-2011, 08:47 AM
I hope I have sufficiently answered your 4 questions but will be happy to answer any further questions you have.

Let me now explain some of the consequenses of a single payor system. You must realize that a single payor system is exactly what it says, that is no one can pay for healthcare except a single payor and that being the government. As a result the government may not determine the standard of care but the level and extent of care. This is the result of your not being allowed to pay for any treatment and a provider cannot accept payment from you. Hense the term single payor. The term in my opinion was created to hide the socialistic character of such a system. Another consequence is that there is no treatement as charity with such a system. No mare will an individual call a provider and tell them to treat the patient and they or a charity will pay for it, and that from my experience is not as rare as you might expect. No longer will a provider provide such treatment as only that treatment which would be above the level of care specified be necessary. If the government says it will not pay for it and the provider cannot charge a fee for the service to others then the will not provide it as a charitable service. If only the government can pay for healthcare services then it will and can set the fees for services. If the proveder is unwilling to provide the service at the set fee then the service will not be provided. but it goes farther than that. It can and will set fees to control the location that a provider musst live and work. Don't expect fees in all states and regions to be the same. Those areas they wish to force providers to work and live will have higher fees than those areas they wish to limit the number of providers. by this method it will choose who gets what level of healthcare.

I will tell you quite simply the effect it will have on me. I will no longer work for the patient, I will be working for the government. I cannot tell you what a profound effect it will have on the relationship.

It is hard to respond on this forum to a bill that has over 2000 pages so let me do it this way. Nancy Pelosi said that it had to be passed to find out what is in it which was in my opinion the most honest and intelligent thing I have heard her say and we are already seeing that she was right. Take for example the more that 1000 waivers already given and it hasn't even been implemented. Using the experience with the Patient bill of rights bill when it was passed which took at least 5 years to understand and implement, I believe this massive bill passed referred to as Obamacare could take as long as 15 years to fully be understook and implemented. If I am right you will see a stagnant economy and high unemployment and a further destruction of the middle class for that period of time. I could argue the cause of the diminishing middle class but that is another discussion.


so why are there many MDs, DOs, etc & other health care providers supporting a single payor system?
Also why has the German health insurance plan been well accepted by the citizens?
You are cherry picking! Change takes time. Now for all your experience how about your vision for a failing system?
Who are you working for now? I might suggest the insurance industry. ( by the way I am also a health care provider) How come many oncologist stopped or change their practices when the law governing the sale of chemo drugs was changed? (About 50% of them made changes or dropped out of their $600,000 dollar a yr. income because the change decreased their incomes to about $300,000).
The medical profession has been and will continue to be a major part of the problem!

dnf777
03-27-2011, 09:00 AM
I don't mean to bring up Bush, but something did come to light under his tenure. At least for me, maybe others saw it long ago, but...

It became apparent that BOTH mainstream political parties in America abandoned the concept of freedom and liberty. Under dems, it came disguised as "let us take care of you in exchange for more gov't regulations". (as you referred to) Under republicans, it came under "Let us keep you safe from all the terrorists that are out there in exchange for for privacy and civil rights concessions and tax breaks for the rich".

Under both regimes, the working class and middle class picked up the tab.

Here are some observations:

The deficit has skyrocketed under both republican and democratic administrations.
Our civil rights and privacies have eroded under both republican and democratic administrations.
The gap between CEOs and workers has grown under republican and democratic administrations.
The number of uninsured and impoverished people has increased under both parties.
The holdings of the richest people in the country and world has increased under both repubicans and democrats.

I don't see either party as a solution to our poor trajectory that we're on. I will credit Obama/Bush for averting a total banking collapse and depression, but then again, that had the multi-nationals' interests to bear also.

Nice to agree with a conservative once in a while. Not sure its ever been called a "compliment" before... :D

Have a good one.

Losthwy
03-27-2011, 09:33 AM
This is from wikipedia on England's National Health Service.
Experiences, perceptions and reporting of the NHS
Although the NHS has a high level of popular public support within the country, the national press is often highly critical of it and this may have affected perceptions of the service within the country as a whole and outside. An independent survey conducted in 2004 found that users of the NHS often expressed very high levels satisfaction about their personal experience of the medical services they received. Of hospital inpatients, 92% said they were satisfied with their treatment; 87% of GP users were satisfied with their GP; 87% of hospital outpatients were satisfied with the service they received; and 70% of Accident and Emergency department users reported being satisfied.[14] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-NHS_2004_survey-13) But when asked whether they agreed with the question "My local NHS is providing me with a good service” only 67% of those surveyed agreed with it, and only 51% agreed with the statement “The NHS is providing a good service.[14] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-NHS_2004_survey-13) The reason for this disparity between personal experience and overall perceptions is not clear. Similarly the survey also showed that net satisfaction with NHS services (the number reporting satisfied less those reporting dissatisfied) was generally higher amongst NHS services users than for all respondents (users as well as non-users). Where more people had no recent experience of that service, the difference in net positive perception reported by users compared to non users was more likely to diverge. For example, the least used service surveyed was walk in centres (only 15% of all persons surveyed had actually used an NHS Walk in clinic in the last year) but 85% of walk in clinic users were satisfied with the service they received. Users' net positive satisfaction was 80%. However, for all respondents (including non recent users) the overall net positive satisfaction was just 25%. The service with the highest rate of use was the GP service (77% having seen their GP in the last year) and the difference in net satisfaction between users and all users was the smallest (76% and 74% net satisfied respectively) [14] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-NHS_2004_survey-13) It is also apparent from the survey that most people realize that the national press is generally critical of the service (64% reporting it as being critical compared to just 13% saying the national press is favourable), and also that the national press is the least reliable source of information (50% reporting it to be not very or not at all reliable, compared to 36% believing the press was reliable).[14] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-NHS_2004_survey-13) Newspapers were reported as being less favourable and also less reliable than the broadcast media. The most reliable sources of information were considered to be leaflets from GPs and information from friends (both 77% reported as reliable) and medical professionals (75% considered reliable).[14] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-NHS_2004_survey-13)
Most people think that the NHS is well run, with 73% of people reporting that they are satisfied with the running of the service and only a little over 10% reporting themselves as dissatisfied.[15] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-14)
It has often been said and agreed that any proposal to overturn the NHS and replace it with a private system like that of the US would not be accepted by the public. The public, although sometimes critical of the NHS would never let it be taken away.

Losthwy
03-27-2011, 09:41 AM
Take for example Canada. While a majority like the system, those who are sick cannot purchase healthcare and are forced to do without when the government bureaucrats decide that the government will not pay for the services they desire. It is a requirement of all single payor systems that no healthcare provider be allowed to charge a patient for any treatment. As a result Canadians who are denied treatment of required to wait for a period that they are unwilling to wait flock across the border to the US to receive treatment here and are willing to pay for it. In fact some Canadians eventake health insurance that is recognized in the US for that reason.

from Wikipedia

In a Canadian National Population Health Survey of 17,276 Canadian residents, it was reported that only 0.5% sought medical care in the US in the previous year. Of these, less than a quarter had traveled to the U.S. expressly to get that care.[74] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-73)

Canadians strongly support the health system's public rather than for-profit private basis, and a 2009 poll by Nanos Research found 86.2% of Canadians surveyed supported or strongly supported "public solutions to make our public health care stronger."[5] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-4)[6] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-5)
A 2009 Harris/Decima poll found 82% of Canadians preferred their healthcare system to the one in the United States, more than ten times as many as the 8% stating a preference for a US-style health care system for Canada[7] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-6) while a Strategic Counsel survey in 2008 found 91% of Canadians preferring their healthcare system to that of the U.S.[8] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-7)[9] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-8) In the same poll, when asked “overall the Canadian health care system was performing very well, fairly well, not very well or not at all?” 70% of Canadians rated their system as working either "well" or "very well".[citation needed (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] A 2003 Gallup poll found only 25% of Americans are either "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with "the availability of affordable healthcare in the nation," versus 50% of those in the UK and 57% of Canadians. Those "very dissatisfied" made up 44% of Americans, 25% of respondents of Britons, and 17% of Canadians.[10] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-9)
In November 2004, Canadians voted Tommy Douglas (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Tommy_Douglas), Canada's "father of Medicare," the Greatest Canadian of all time following a nationwide contest sponsored by the CBC (http://www.retrievertraining.net/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation).[11] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-10)[12] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-11)

Losthwy
03-27-2011, 10:17 AM
3. only 3 come to mind offhand. There are probably more. They are Cuba, Vietnam and North Korea. Cuba has a free healthcare system but cannot provide even minimal healthcare by US standards even Fidel Castro went to France for treatment. Vietnam, I know very little about the economic status of that country. North Korea not only don't heavany healthcare to speak of, their people are starving and would be even worse if the US quits paying them not to develop nuclear weapons. Look around the world and those countries that have chosen to go down the road of greatly expanded government and entitlements are in dire economic circumstances. Examples are Ireland, England, Greece, Spain and Portugal. There are a great many others but these should make my point.

I can't regard Cuba, Vietnam or North Korea as leading industrial nations or to use them as examples and get a comparison of how other nations have fared with national health. For their situations are so vastly different than countries such as U.S., Canada, and England.

caryalsobrook
03-27-2011, 10:25 AM
so many valid questions as the result of my post and that is good. I'll take the numerous questions asked by sinner first and go from there.
1. Support by health care providers of a single payor system. Neither you nor I have actual statistics on this issue, only our perceptions of the numbers. I would suggest that those healthcare providers who work for the government or teach at an institution of higher learning, or work for a salary would have a higher percentage of support for a single payor system. you also may see a higher percentage of those who practice in so large a group practice that they have turned all of the business aspects of private practice over to a practice manager but these would still be less that those on salary or in government work. those in smaller groups or in solo private practice would give far less suport for such a system. My perception is that only those who work for the government would support such a system by a majority. I have no proof and freely admit it but I will contend that you have no proof that a majority support it either.
2. Concerning German support of their system, I am a dentist and have personally treated a West German who visited this country for a summer and wished to get her dental work done here(which was quite substantial) and willing to pay for it so long as it could be completed during the summer. I asked her why she did not get it done in West Germany since they had socialized medicine. Her response was "You don't understand. The level of care is controlled by the government and I am not satisfied with that level. I can not pay for it here since the government will not allow the doctors to perform the services I want and allow me to pay for it. I am willing to pay for it and I am allowed to do that in this country." If you look back at my orriginal post, those who have little need for care like the system and those who either require or want a higher level of care dictated by the government do not like the system.
3. Cherry Picking- I did not cherry pick, I only responded concerning countries that I had knowledge of. If you have knowledge of other countries that are different than those I refferenced then so speak. I specifically would emphasize Canada because it has been bought up many times as the ideal model for a single payor system and enjoys a close proxicimity to us. My statements are accurate concerning the countries and challenge you to prove them wrong.
4. Working for the insurance company- I HAVE NOT EVER WORKED FOR AN INSURANCE COMPANY IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. There is no law or requirement that makes me do so. If any provider works for an insurance company, is their choice and theirs only. Market conditions may make them FEEL like they have to BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO.
5. Sale of drugs- I think you asnwered your own question so I will quote you "law governing the sale of drugs" If you don't like the law governing the sale of drugs then why do you advocate a single payor system forbibbing the sale of healthcare??
6. Medical profession part of the problem- If you read my post you will see that I specifically criticised the healthcare profession for charging for their services as if it were a used car lot. I stated that if the profession would say "hell no, my fees are the lowest I will accept and are market driven and charged the same no matter who received the care, then we all that pay would be better off"

When I graduated from dental school, I spent about 1 1/2 years working as an independent contractor(I don't know how else to put it unless call it self employed) until I could buy the land and build my office. After that I was in solo practice from then on. That is my background and the vantage point I see the problem. What is yours.

One question for you. It is simple and can be answered with a simple YES or NO. Are you willing to deny a patient's freedom to choose the level of care he or she desires and is willing to pay for it, and are you willing to deny a person who happens to be a health care provider the freedom to work for who he chooses? I'd like an answer.

caryalsobrook
03-27-2011, 10:42 AM
This is from wikipedia on England's National Health Service.
Experiences, perceptions and reporting of the NHS
Although the NHS has a high level of popular public support within the country, the national press is often highly critical of it and this may have affected perceptions of the service within the country as a whole and outside. An independent survey conducted in 2004 found that users of the NHS often expressed very high levels satisfaction about their personal experience of the medical services they received. Of hospital inpatients, 92% said they were satisfied with their treatment; 87% of GP users were satisfied with their GP; 87% of hospital outpatients were satisfied with the service they received; and 70% of Accident and Emergency department users reported being satisfied.[14] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-NHS_2004_survey-13) But when asked whether they agreed with the question "My local NHS is providing me with a good service” only 67% of those surveyed agreed with it, and only 51% agreed with the statement “The NHS is providing a good service.[14] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-NHS_2004_survey-13) The reason for this disparity between personal experience and overall perceptions is not clear. Similarly the survey also showed that net satisfaction with NHS services (the number reporting satisfied less those reporting dissatisfied) was generally higher amongst NHS services users than for all respondents (users as well as non-users). Where more people had no recent experience of that service, the difference in net positive perception reported by users compared to non users was more likely to diverge. For example, the least used service surveyed was walk in centres (only 15% of all persons surveyed had actually used an NHS Walk in clinic in the last year) but 85% of walk in clinic users were satisfied with the service they received. Users' net positive satisfaction was 80%. However, for all respondents (including non recent users) the overall net positive satisfaction was just 25%. The service with the highest rate of use was the GP service (77% having seen their GP in the last year) and the difference in net satisfaction between users and all users was the smallest (76% and 74% net satisfied respectively) [14] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-NHS_2004_survey-13) It is also apparent from the survey that most people realize that the national press is generally critical of the service (64% reporting it as being critical compared to just 13% saying the national press is favourable), and also that the national press is the least reliable source of information (50% reporting it to be not very or not at all reliable, compared to 36% believing the press was reliable).[14] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-NHS_2004_survey-13) Newspapers were reported as being less favourable and also less reliable than the broadcast media. The most reliable sources of information were considered to be leaflets from GPs and information from friends (both 77% reported as reliable) and medical professionals (75% considered reliable).[14] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-NHS_2004_survey-13)
Most people think that the NHS is well run, with 73% of people reporting that they are satisfied with the running of the service and only a little over 10% reporting themselves as dissatisfied.[15] (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/#cite_note-14)
It has often been said and agreed that any proposal to overturn the NHS and replace it with a private system like that of the US would not be accepted by the public. The public, although sometimes critical of the NHS would never let it be taken away.

If you read my post, I said that those who had little need for treatment, supported the system and those who had a greater need for the system (that being a single payor system) were opposed to it. The last I heard, England was broke and having protest because of the need to cut student funding and were next to riots due to the spiriling cost of food due to inflation(A clasic result of massive government deficit, sound familiar?) Furthermore, England once had a single payor system and has since created a 2 tiered system whereby one can chose to pay for their own care and choose the level they are willing to pay for. There is no doubt that once a country goes to such a system the difficulty of returning to a system more like ours is almost insurmountable. It may be only the total finantiol calapse of a country's finantial system is the only thing that returns a country to sanity.

I'll ask you the same question that I asked sinner. Would you deny a patient the freedom to choose the level of care they choose if they are willing to pay for it and would you deny the healthcare provider the freedom to sell his services to those who are willing to pay for it? Yes or no. You cannot have a single payor system otherwise.

caryalsobrook
03-27-2011, 10:49 AM
I don't mean to bring up Bush, but something did come to light under his tenure. At least for me, maybe others saw it long ago, but...

It became apparent that BOTH mainstream political parties in America abandoned the concept of freedom and liberty. Under dems, it came disguised as "let us take care of you in exchange for more gov't regulations". (as you referred to) Under republicans, it came under "Let us keep you safe from all the terrorists that are out there in exchange for for privacy and civil rights concessions and tax breaks for the rich".

Under both regimes, the working class and middle class picked up the tab.

Here are some observations:

The deficit has skyrocketed under both republican and democratic administrations.
Our civil rights and privacies have eroded under both republican and democratic administrations.
The gap between CEOs and workers has grown under republican and democratic administrations.
The number of uninsured and impoverished people has increased under both parties.
The holdings of the richest people in the country and world has increased under both repubicans and democrats.

I don't see either party as a solution to our poor trajectory that we're on. I will credit Obama/Bush for averting a total banking collapse and depression, but then again, that had the multi-nationals' interests to bear also.

Nice to agree with a conservative once in a while. Not sure its ever been called a "compliment" before... :D

Have a good one.

Just to point out that I did not criticize an individual, nor party nor a specific administration. I only discussed policies.

sinner
03-27-2011, 11:51 AM
so why are there many MDs, DOs, etc & other health care providers supporting a single payor system?
Also why has the German health insurance plan been well accepted by the citizens?
You are cherry picking! Change takes time. Now for all your experience how about your vision for a failing system?
Who are you working for now? I might suggest the insurance industry. ( by the way I am also a health care provider) How come many oncologist stopped or change their practices when the law governing the sale of chemo drugs was changed? (About 50% of them made changes or dropped out of their $600,000 dollar a yr. income because the change decreased their incomes to about $300,000).
The medical profession has been and will continue to be a major part of the problem!

Care to answer my question?

caryalsobrook
03-27-2011, 12:09 PM
Care to answer my question?

I answered your question. But I will be blunt. I believe that there are FAR more healthcare providers, that being MD, OD, DDS, DMD, and optometrists that opposes single payor system that support it. My opinion is based on the fact that there are far more private practitioners than there government practitioners. I CANNOT prove it since there has been no such creditable poll done. For the same reason, YOU cannot prove that a majority supports such a system. Do you think that there is any way that I can be any more accurate?

Now YOU answer my question.

dnf777
03-27-2011, 12:15 PM
Care to answer my question?

It was kind of a trick question. And along with Cary's answer, I agree, it is impossible to answer, as there are no good polls out there right now.

Over half of all healthcare dollars that exchange hands right now come from the gov't. About 5 years ago, gov't provided dollars surpassed private. Tricare is the largest HMO in the world, or at last glance it was anyway.

Cary: the only comment I would add about what percentage of providers support vs oppose single-payor........Is what percentage of providers UNDERSTAND single-payor systems?? What type of single payor? Gov't? Gov't via the conduit of private insurance?

Its impossible to give a straight answer, as its impossible to ask a straight question. Its a complicated beast.

caryalsobrook
03-27-2011, 12:25 PM
It was kind of a trick question. And along with Cary's answer, I agree, it is impossible to answer, as there are no good polls out there right now.

Over half of all healthcare dollars that exchange hands right now come from the gov't. About 5 years ago, gov't provided dollars surpassed private. Tricare is the largest HMO in the world, or at last glance it was anyway.

Cary: the only comment I would add about what percentage of providers support vs oppose single-payor........Is what percentage of providers UNDERSTAND single-payor systems?? What type of single payor? Gov't? Gov't via the conduit of private insurance?

Its impossible to give a straight answer, as its impossible to ask a straight question. Its a complicated beast.

I offered to discuss healthcare with you in the past and you declined. Now look where you are:) And look how much we agree:) Now look at the title "SINGLE PAYOR" and look at the rest ot the countries around the world who have systems that fall into the category. I challenge you to show me one that differs from what I have said with the exception of England which is trying to get away from it.
Couldn't resist coudd you?:)

dnf777
03-27-2011, 12:41 PM
I offered to discuss healthcare with you in the past and you declined. Now look where you are:) And look how much we agree:) Now look at the title "SINGLE PAYOR" and look at the rest ot the countries around the world who have systems that fall into the category. I challenge you to show me one that differs from what I have said with the exception of England which is trying to get away from it.
Couldn't resist coudd you?:)

I'll take your ribbing in the nature it was meant. :)

What I declined to discuss was a specific case of ethics, for entirely different reasons and as because of part of my responsibilities, I should not do so.

Any-hoo...

I'm surprised that more businesses haven't come out in support of single-payer. All those other countries that have SPHC, the employers are not burdened with providing health care, as they are here. I've hear that up to 25% of the price of a new American-built car goes to paying health benefits for the men and women on the line. (I'm sure someone with knowledge can correct me if I'm off)

while taxpayers would be asked to pick up the tab, it would unencumber business from health premiums, which could be reinvested in growth and employment.

Not saying good or bad, just odd that hasn't been discussed much.

sinner
03-27-2011, 01:55 PM
I answered your question. But I will be blunt. I believe that there are FAR more healthcare providers, that being MD, OD, DDS, DMD, and optometrists that opposes single payor system that support it. My opinion is based on the fact that there are far more private practitioners than there government practitioners. I CANNOT prove it since there has been no such creditable poll done. For the same reason, YOU cannot prove that a majority supports such a system. Do you think that there is any way that I can be any more accurate?

Now YOU answer my question.

http://pnhp.org/ and http://www.npr.org/series/91971170/germany-health-care-for-all
if you haven't looked at these it might be worth your time.
The problem is our curent culture will not support much change.
I studied this for 13 years. None are as bad as you state and none are as good as our government states.
Interesting the Germany system found that puting physicians on a budget made a difference in cost but little impact on outcomes.
Also are you familiar with such instrument as SF36. or SF12 or 8?
I have been an advocate that "we" get paid on our outcomes for 30+ years.
So far not much luck by the NCQA to move us in that direction.

sinner
03-27-2011, 02:05 PM
I answered your question. But I will be blunt. I believe that there are FAR more healthcare providers, that being MD, OD, DDS, DMD, and optometrists that opposes single payor system that support it. My opinion is based on the fact that there are far more private practitioners than there government practitioners. I CANNOT prove it since there has been no such creditable poll done. For the same reason, YOU cannot prove that a majority supports such a system. Do you think that there is any way that I can be any more accurate?

Now YOU answer my question.

Opinion mine: this is the same gang that got us into this mess!
Would I deny care to some one who chose to pay for it them selves?
No but then would you deny the same quality of care to someone who could not pay for it?
How about a heart valve replacement that the bill was $125,000 for: self-pay or insurance or ?????.

sinner
03-27-2011, 02:09 PM
question for you. It is simple and can be answered with a simple YES or NO. Are you willing to deny a patient's freedom to choose the level of care he or she desires and is willing to pay for it, and are you willing to deny a person who happens to be a health care provider the freedom to work for who he chooses? I'd like an answer.

No problem with the first of your one "question". Chose what you want (Jehovah Witness, Church of Scientology, the “Moonies”) as these folks all ready do.
Work for who ever you want to. I don’t care! In our “free market” health care I do that
now. Gosh I did not see in the health bill where you would become a “Federal employee”!

Your statement about Germany is time dependent: I studied them in 1985-7. What you stated about your one experience is anecdotal.
At this time there is a business in health care that is evolving: MDVIP. Interesting that some physicians are jumping to it but it is again dependent up on if you care afford the price!
I take great exception to your comment about suing for poor outcomes: We do such a poor job of policing ourselves that we are a “peers covering our own butts system”
Also aren’t we crying for tort reforms?
I am done. You won’t change and I don’t expect in my lifetime for health care to not be a political football what ever I do.
Just so you know I did develop & manage a preventive dental clinic, wellness & prevention center, an on demand mammography center and an industrial rehab process for a fortune 500 company.
Healthy employees and employees with chronic disease that is well manage, have a higher cost benefit ratio based on health care costs, productivity, absenteeism and turnover when compared to company program costs.
I have the published data to prove it. Health care cost was not the biggest contributor to that cost benefit. Just perhaps if we spend $ to keep our citizen health and to better manage those with chronic disease our financial outcome might improve!

caryalsobrook
03-27-2011, 02:38 PM
http://pnhp.org/ and http://www.npr.org/series/91971170/germany-health-care-for-all
if you haven't looked at these it might be worth your time.
The problem is our curent culture will not support much change.
I studied this for 13 years. None are as bad as you state and none are as good as our government states.
Interesting the Germany system found that puting physicians on a budget made a difference in cost but little impact on outcomes.
Also are you familiar with such instrument as SF36. or SF12 or 8?
I have been an advocate that "we" get paid on our outcomes for 30+ years.
So far not much luck by the NCQA to move us in that direction.

Nothing generally I could find that differed from what I said, only that Germany now also has opted for an alternative to socialized medicine by allowing a small fraction of the public to opt out of the gov. system. As far as putting doctors on a budget, that has been tried by the insurance companies with a form of insurance called capitation. A miniscule number tried it and eventually went broke or managed to get out of this form of insurance. There is no so little participation with this form of insurance if any,I have little knowledge of it now. In fact I have never known anyone to have participated in it.
As far as the sf instruments, I have no knowledge.
As far as getting paid based on outcome, we have a system that you ge sued for bad outcomes.

I have answered each and eveery question you have asked and with every post I make answering your questions, I ask you to answer one and only question which can be answered with a simple yes or no. You are obviously avoiding the question. I am sure your avoidance tells all who read these post what your answer would be.

caryalsobrook
03-27-2011, 07:41 PM
question for you. It is simple and can be answered with a simple YES or NO. Are you willing to deny a patient's freedom to choose the level of care he or she desires and is willing to pay for it, and are you willing to deny a person who happens to be a health care provider the freedom to work for who he chooses? I'd like an answer.

No problem with the first of your one "question". Chose what you want (Jehovah Witness, Church of Scientology, the “Moonies”) as these folks all ready do.
Work for who ever you want to. I don’t care! In our “free market” health care I do that
now. Gosh I did not see in the health bill where you would become a “Federal employee”!

Your statement about Germany is time dependent: I studied them in 1985-7. What you stated about your one experience is anecdotal.
At this time there is a business in health care that is evolving: MDVIP. Interesting that some physicians are jumping to it but it is again dependent up on if you care afford the price!
I take great exception to your comment about suing for poor outcomes: We do such a poor job of policing ourselves that we are a “peers covering our own butts system”
Also aren’t we crying for tort reforms?
I am done. You won’t change and I don’t expect in my lifetime for health care to not be a political football what ever I do.
Just so you know I did develop & manage a preventive dental clinic, wellness & prevention center, an on demand mammography center and an industrial rehab process for a fortune 500 company.
Healthy employees and employees with chronic disease that is well manage, have a higher cost benefit ratio based on health care costs, productivity, absenteeism and turnover when compared to company program costs.
I have the published data to prove it. Health care cost was not the biggest contributor to that cost benefit. Just perhaps if we spend $ to keep our citizen health and to better manage those with chronic disease our financial outcome might improve!

not surprised you could not or would not answer a simple question with a simple answer. having practice managment people run our practices is one of the things that I consider a big mistake for us(meaning the practitioner). RJ Renolds got out of the dental business. Found out private practice did it better. A a practitioner you surely know that if the practitioner is 99.9% right and .01% wrong, he loses. Yes I have corrected faulty work in the past but my main goal was always to restore quality care and make the patient happy. If you call this covering someone's but then I a happy to do so. Nice to know that you managed a preventive dental clinic. Did you perform any of the preventive dentistry? As far as one coveering his peer's butt, did you see that in the clinic you refer to or do you personally of another clinic that did? I have had patients from at least 2 of the sects you mention and they got the very best treatment I could give. That goes for serial killers, child molesters, drug addicts, liveberaly, socialists and marxists which I have also treated. They and all others got the very best care I could give at all times. That is my proudest achievement. Notice I did not devide those that paid and those that didn't. I must admit that I have been known to tell a pataient that maybe he or she would be happier hiring another dentist but very rarely.