[Opinion]US healthcare bill
-
I am a believer in the UK's National Health Service. It's just that at the moment it's going downhill fast. For example my father-in-law was sent to the local hospital to be checked over for a lung shadow.
We arrived and he was seen within 15 minutes and put in the assessment ward. Various checks were carried out speedily and he was transferred to ward "you'll need a biopsy on your lung".
Alas this is where things started on the downhill slope. He was put under a consultant who after a couple of days "went on holiday" without making any arrangement for the biopsy. Over the next couple of weeks his condition deteriorated. We asked what his treatment was and how he was progressing, but were told to speak to the doctor who was rarely around. I took an afternoon off work to ensure we saw the consultant on his afternoon round. We told the ward sister we wanted to speak with him and she assured us he had started his ward round and we could speak to him when he reached father-in-law. Time drifted on, but yes he knew we wanted to speak to him. Then the registrar came in, sorry the round was taking longer than usual but he would be round to see us. Finally a staff nurse came in to the six bed side ward and announced that the consultant had left and would finish the round the next morning! Oh, did you want to see him, could you come back in the morning. To this day I don't know how I didn't lapse into Anglo-Saxon.On another visit my wife heard a faint voice from the next bed. The poor old guy had been given his dinner but it had been left out of his reach. Also it was sausages but he wasn't strong enough to cut them up, so she did and moved it to where he could reach. He died a couple of days later.
Shortly after this father-in-law died, although the circumstances were not clear. My wife and son went to visit him and found him dead in his bed. Initially they weren't believed by the ward sister, but then doctors and nurses arrived from everywhere, but to no avail. As far as we were aware he never did have his biopsy. Our letter of complaint was replied to in a half hearted way.
These days I don't worry how the service is funded, only how well it is delivered. Too many institutions are like Fawlty Towers, the patients just get in the way of it's smooth running. Private medicine gives a direct link between the patient and the money, offer crap service and the patient goes elsewhere and there is no money. Public medicine doesn't have that link so those who give crap service get away with it. Nobody gets fired, they're just sent for "more training" which is a cop out. Perhaps that's why there are so many hospital bugs, lack of enforcement of standards.
Visit a NHS hospital and die! -
I concratulated Obama yesterday on http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
Bep
-
@ben ritter said:
It is not the US government's role to make sure that everyone has health insurance. As for comments I've heard about military costs, it may be high, but at least that is where the US gov't. should be spending it's resources.
Ben
Ben, Ben, Ben, .......... the US government already spends 49% of GDP on the Military Industrial Complex, each year. And your worried about a little bit ofSocial Democracy? Its laughable! You are no longer a nation of a few million people, where "Once upon a time" the the prevailing attitude may have been "F**K my Neighbor, I'm only here to look out for myself and my family". If you have not noticed, its that attitude that GW used to get the US into deep trouble with its War in Iraq. Squandering Trillions of your future tax dollars, for a war that has killed more than 1 million Iraqi's. Who happen to be human beings just like you and me. Where was the rage against the Iraq war? The rest of the world already has socialized medical care, and has had for decades. If its not the role for Governments to provide health insurance, then who's job is it to help you survive, when you get sick. Trust me we will all get sick, sometime in your lives.
-
Tomot, every article I researched places the US Government's defense spending at below 10% of the GDP. Even the most militant patriot would balk at the percentage you listed. As for outrage over the Iraq war, there were/are plenty of Americans against it and who protested.
-
Americans are free to choose a health system they want. The European model, whatever you want to call it, has main benefits over the traditional American system:
- it costs less. Americans spend a larger portion of their GNP on healthcare than Europeans do.
- it gives better results. Europeans are generally healthier. I don't know the real reason, maybe it depends on the relatively large proportion of Americans that are without healthcare.
The European system is not the same everywhere. There are national and regional differences, with the French being generally the most envied. Our Finnish system is rated somewhere in the middle caste, but I really cannot find fault with the care I and my family have received when in need of it.
Anssi
-
I envy y'all system.
It's a shame that a country like ours cannot do the most fundamental of things, protect our health yet feel that protecting our lives from WMD's that do not exist is more important.
-
@daniel said:
Tomot, every article I researched places the US Government's defense spending at below 10% of the GDP. Even the most militant patriot would balk at the percentage you listed. As for outrage over the Iraq war, there were/are plenty of Americans against it and who protested.
Thanks for calling that to my attention. I was taking that info from a pie chart, not unlike the attached one, which is not as severe. I suppose one can skew a pie chart to engage any intended group.
However comparing a pie chart to the us debt clock ........YIKES!
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
US National Debt Clock : Real Time U.S. National Debt Clock
(www.usdebtclock.org)
-
Frankly, I'm glad to see it get to this point. There are still a number of problems, and those problems will need to be worked out, but it's doable... Perhaps we'll see some of the military budget being wasted in Irag transferred to this program (after our pull out) to help the citizens who generate the revenues that fuel the "war machine" in the first place...
I'm more chagrined about the GOP and their "we're not going to co-operate on further legislation this year" foolishness. We have a LOT of things that still need to be fixed in this country, like illegal immigration for example, and this kind of rhetoric is just plain stupid. Akin to "I'm taking my ball and going home" immaturity that I would expect from a spoiled child.
A prime example of how they (the GOP) consider the "party" more important than the populace.
Next November will be interesting...
Cheers.
-
There are a couple things that truly torque me off about this health care bill.
the first, (and i'm not sure if this ahas changed..probably not) is that members of Congress were exempt from the actions of the bill.
the second... there is a reason not everyone has health insurance. an example.. my mother doesn't for the simple fact that she cannot afford it. Nor can her (now ex) husband, who runs his own successful cable contracting company. both of them need it because of their health, but there is nothing they can do to afford it. Forcing t down their throats, and expecting them to pay for it is a load of crap. There is a country (switzerland I believe, could be wrong) that makes it mandatory for everyone to have a certain level of health care, but they (the government) pay for it, and if people want a higher level, they can pay for it.Based on the way i've seen our (the US) government work, this system will fail, and fail hard. and the reasons all come down to one word: greed.
While I didn't vote for Obama, I did try to give him a chance. But one thing has become clear to me. This health care thing has nothing to do with improving the country, but with checking off something that was on his personal agenda.
I'm one of those that has lost all faith in our government accomplishing anything meaningful. When "Representing the People" becomse an entitlement career, where you are exempt from many of the laws you impose on others, pretty much don't have to worry about answering to your constituants, vote for your own pay raise, etc. its a sign that things need to change. On the same token, I do think the whole 'Tea-Party' movement is a Farce.In short, i think this Health care thing is a very bad idea, rushed through with little thought to the concequences, implimented by a government that is broken, and only concerned about themselves. Health care for eveyone is a good idea, but the plan that has been pushed through is not.
Thanks for giving me a place to rant on this
-
Well said Mike, I agree 100%. Why half of the Americans here feel that it is a smart move to put health care in the hands of the federal government is beyond me.
If the government was reduced down to one man on a job interview and you reviewed his job history, his success or failure rates of other companies he's run, did a background check, checked with his creditors and called his references and found a history of bankruptcies, unpaid loans, extreme debts, accusations of war crimes & fraud and all his neighbors say he's an agressive bully.....would you then hire him to oversee the health and well being of your children?
-
@unknownuser said:
If the government was reduced down to one man on a job interview and you reviewed his job history, his success or failure rates of other companies he's run, did a background check, checked with his creditors and called his references and found a history of bankruptcies, unpaid loans, extreme debts, accusations of war crimes & fraud and all his neighbors say he's an agressive bully
Sounds like George Bush...and we hired him....twice.
-
@unknownuser said:
Based on the way i've seen our (the US) government work, this system will fail, and fail hard. and the reasons all come down to one word: greed.
And this differs from the kind of greed we see by having health care managed in the private sector by insurance companies? Those same insurance companies who are owned by stock holders who expect to see PROFIT from their investments?
A basic tenet of capitalism: Provide the least amount of service for the maximum amount of profit.
I wouldn't worry too much. We've had Social Security since 1935, and other than Bush's idea to place IT in the hands of the private business sector during his less than stellar terms in office, it's survived. Not only that, but because this is such a hot issue, you can bet your bottom dollar that it'll be watch-dogged by everyone from the ACLU to the average Joe Citizen at Zander's Home Cookin' and Taxidermy Shop in rural <where ever>...
Cheers.
-
Jeff well said actually, this is exactly why I am for big government. We the citizens have a say to a greater extent with big government, we get to vote for who we want to control it, allocate the spending of our taxes. Small government relies on big business to police themselves, control assets and decide our future.
Look how well that has worked out... recession and war, a health system that is atrocious, a health care that is responsible for 78% bankruptcies in 2009.
I say let the government run it, they may not be perfect but at least they can be held accountable, at least their motives will be our health and not profit.
-
@idahoj said:
And this differs from the kind of greed we see by having health care managed in the private sector by insurance companies? Those same insurance companies who are owned by stock holders who expect to see PROFIT from their investments?
lol... very true... I guess despite the Wallstreet Shenanigans from not too long ago, i figured that the private company owners would still be more competant than Congress.
@solo said:
I say let the government run it, they may not be perfect but at least they can be held accountable, at least their motives will be our health and not profit.
If the government were truly accountable to the people, i would agree. but how many people actually vote and exercise that control over their government?
[offtopic,kinda]funny thing about he capitalism comments though, shouldn't the government have let AIG et al fail? instead of wasting trillions into that hole? [/offtopic]
-
I agree, they should have let AIG fail, there should not be a 'Too big to fail" ransom, it's time Obama addressed these reforms, and I believe this regulation will get partisan support.
@unknownuser said:
If the government were truly accountable to the people, i would agree. but how many people actually vote and exercise that control over their government?
I believe if the government was responsible for our health care then we would have a personal interest in their performance as an investor is financially interested in his invested big business's ability to generate profits.
-
@solo said:
I say let the government run it, they may not be perfect but at least they can be held accountable, at least their motives will be our health and not profit.
That's America! You always have to choose between the lesser of two evils!
I just don't understand why everything has to come at the cost of liberty. Why a mandate? I mean what's next, the ban of salt so high blood pressure doesn't put excess burden on the Health Care budget? Oh wait - http://www.examiner.com/x-26942-NY-Restaurant-Examiner~y2010m3d20-A-ban-on-salt-in-New-York-City-restaurants-is-an-assault-on-restaurants
-
@unknownuser said:
I just don't understand why everything has to come at the cost of liberty.
Like the patriot act?
-
@unknownuser said:
funny thing about he capitalism comments though, shouldn't the government have let AIG et al fail? instead of wasting trillions into that hole?
IMO, under normal circumstances, I'd would have agreed. But the recession, coupled with the huge number of areas in which AIG, Citi, BoA, etc had a fiscal "presence" made it almost impossible to let them fail. GM was the same way. Allowing them to tank would have only worsened the recession by having a "rippling" negative effect on the numerous secondary industries that supply components, and transportation of those components for GM assembly for instance.
For "wasting trillions", personally, I don't think so. The economy is showing good signs of recovering (much earlier than I thought it would) and that money will be recovered eventually. Just today I read the Fed is going to be offering up it's 27% stake in Citi back onto the market this year. The project recoup will be around 8b$ or so.
Your question does make a good a good argument for more Federal oversight...
If the Fed had been watching AIG and the others, Citi, BOA, etc more closely, the situation may have never arisen in the first place. Instead, the "free market, hands off" attitude of the Bush Administration, along with their seemingly total preoccupation with the "War on Terror", allowed these financial giants to make some pretty risky decisions.
Couple that with Americans who thought they should own 4000 sq. ft. homes at ridiculously low sub-primes and you have the recipe for failure... The American Dream gone disastrously wrong...
@unknownuser said:
I just don't understand why everything has to come at the cost of liberty.
Adam, in what ways have your liberties been compromised?
Cheers.
-
@solo said:
@unknownuser said:
I just don't understand why everything has to come at the cost of liberty.
Like the patriot act?
Solo
Just what part of the patriot Act is not in the RICO Act? Seems to me if it is good enough for criminals, it should be good enough for terrorist.
Ken
-
LOL, there is a major difference between them, Firstly one is for racketeering and involves local enforcement and warrants before measures like wire tapping, searches and incarceration, with a maximum of 72 hours before either charging or releasing.
The other is the Patriot act, which strips you of all rights on a just suspicion. Taking jurisdiction above all local and state laws, indefinite holding without charge, unprovoked search and seizures, cross the board surveillance.
Advertisement