National Health Care Questions

[Losthwy]

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 Is there an example of a nation that implemented national health care that later repealed it?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]

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 Is there an example of a nation that implemented national health care that later repealed it?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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

Have a good one.

[Losthwy]

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] 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] 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] 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] 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]
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]
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]

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]

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][6]
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] while a Strategic Counsel survey in 2008 found 91% of Canadians preferring their healthcare system to that of the U.S.[8][9] 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] 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]
In November 2004, Canadians voted Tommy Douglas, Canada's "father of Medicare," the Greatest Canadian of all time following a nationwide contest sponsored by the CBC.[11][12]

[Losthwy]

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.