To "UtahBlueDevil" that is wrong. You are comparing Apples to exotic
sports cars.You are finding problems with individual companies, they
are not problems with the system.The articles that I have listed are
problems with the system. The NHS, the entire healthcare system in England, is
causing those problems.That is the advantage of not having a
socialized system. Problems are locallized to individual companies.Again, your problems are with individual companies, not the SYSTEM. Other
than government regulations killing insurance companies, there are no systemic
Redshirt… common on…. I could make just as good of a list of
article about the US health care system. Please. Do you want a list of
articles about where US health insures would not pay for new or what they call
experimental treatments? This is silly…. "Cancer
Patient Says Insurer, Medical Group Denied Him Life-Saving Treatment"
LAtimes"Challenging a health insurer's decision to deny
medical care" LA Times"Insurance companies refuse to pay
medical bills of Old Bridge woman injured in wrong-way crash" NJ.com"Doctor Refuses To Treat 200-Pound Woman Because Of Her Weight"
Chapel Hill Care News….. I could keep posting many
more…. and it would prove nothing. Name a country…. I'll find
articles that complain about anything. Data… that is what tells the real
truth about the results in care. The UK, with 63 million people covered.. it
just isn't that hard to find cases where things went wrong - just like the
states with 300 million. Name anything, I'll find people who complain
about it in the media.
To "UtahBlueDevil" read the headlines coming out of England. Read the
following and tell me if there is a problem with the NHS:"Lottery of NHS drugs punishes the dying" Telegraph"Breast cancer sufferers denied two drugs on NHS" Telegraph"Children denied life-saving cancer drugs" Telegraph"Kidney cancer patients 'denied life-saving drugs'" ITV"How NHS doctors deny life-saving cancer drugs to over-70s"
Express"New NHS drugs policy could see elderly denied
treatment" The Independant"Third Of Kidney Cancer Patients
'Denied Life-Extending Drugs'" UK Huffington Post"'Welsh NHS patients denied cancer drug funding'" BBC"Cancer patients denied vital drugs" Sunday Post"British NHS Abandoning Elderly Patients, Denying Them Cancer
Treatment" Life News"Nuclear test veteran says he was
'left to rot' after being refused new NHS cancer treatment"
Mirror"Patients denied key treatments due to NHS cost-cutting,
surgeons warn" the GuardianThere are more, and if you start to
look at more diseases that hit the elderly, the NHS does little more than give
them asprins for brain tumors.After you read those, can you honestly
tell me that there is not a problem in the UK with the NHS?
Redshirt... my dad who is in his late 70s just moved back to the US from Hook
England - after living there for 20 years. I know for a fact he doesn't
share your experiences with NHS... you do have experience with NHS, don't
you? You have first hand, or even relatives that have used the system... your
speaking from experience, right?Didn't think so. You just
can't make sweeping statements that cancer care is better here than there.
In some cancers like Breast - the US has a better mortality rate then the UK.
But others such as Liver cancer - your chance of surviving your cancer in the UK
is nearly 30% better. Lung Cancer... France is a better bet than the US with a
mortality rate for that cancer close to half of ours, despite the fact they
smoke like chimney's over there, and pay half as much for care as we do.Broad, sweeping statements really prove nothing. All or nothing
statements are also nearly useless... there is good, and bad, in all systems.
To "marxist" actually charitable hospitals have worked, and continue to
work today.The Shriner's Hospitals are recognized as some of
the best children's hospitals in the nation. They are non-profit
charitable hospitals, and only once regulations began to kill them did they
start to accept any insurance policies.LDS Hospital in SLC was a
charitable hospital until they were regulated into becomeing a for profit
hospital.ST. Marks Hospital in SLC was a charitable hospital until
they were regulated into becomeing a for profit hospital.Primary
Children's Hospital was a charitable hospital until they were regulated
into becomeing a for profit hospital.Charitable hospitals have and
do work until government regulates them to death.To
"UtahBlueDevil" you are wrong. Huntsman Cancer institute provides some
charitable cancer treatments. The man you describe would have received
treatment through the generosity of others. If you want to see what happens
under universal care, look to England. The NHS is known for denying treatment
and medications for older cancer patients. If you go the universal care route
you will eventually end up with a system like the NHS in England.
What disturbs me is the rights distinction between "charitable" welfare
and "government" welfare."Charitable" is good and
"government" is bad...really bad. Rather than viewing
government as an extension of ourselves, and taxes as a way to fund that
extension they view government as their opponent and taxes as stealing. I have
to admit this strikes me as not only very inefficient but almost schizophrenic.
Looking at government as "us" does not make everything
government does right or good. Just as not every thing "charities" do
is right or good. The difference is you are a part of society compelled by your
citizenship to participate, so it would be far more efficient to let society
take care of it's own and for the right to help find ways to do it
efficiently, rather than constantly trying to strip the government of services
and transferring those services to sub organizations of society.
Redshirt.... peoples health care delivery should not be subject to the whims of
charitable giving. You ask what the difference would be. This chap
could have regular treatment, not this yo-yo style where you run cycles of his
health crashing to the point of an ER admittance, then back to nothing, until he
crashes again. This is the most expensive method of delivering care.... the
cost of delivery to him would be fractional to what an ER admittance currently
is.The ER should not be anyones main source of care.... but that is
what we have for many. And I would hope that should anyone you know have cancer
- that their pain treatment and management was not dependent on the charitable
giving of those around them.
@Redshirt1701 "Rather than looking for government solutions, why not look
for ways to boost charitable hospitals in your community? If there was a
charitable hospital, he could have received proper care." We know from long
experience this does not work, especially for the chronically ill. The only
really effective solution is socialized care like in Norway or France. The ACA
pales by comparison, but it is better than what we've been through.The people will not endure substandard care forever.
That all makes sense . . . except for your expectation that the Utah Legislature
would support "a sensible expansion of Medicaid."In a state
dominated by anti-government sentiment, willfully misinformed politicians, and
unworkable Right Wing ideology, how can you expect something sensible to come
from the state legislature?In a state dominated by the Tea Party . .
. WHERE is all that "sense" supposed to be coming from?You
might well ask for Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny for support too. It would
be just as reasonable.There is no such thing as a sensible state
legislature in a Tea-Party-dominated state.
To "UtahBlueDevil" and what would the difference be if the old man had
an Obamacare plan? Do you really think that the family can pay for the
deductable or the medications and services not covered by the insurance?Or, if we followed the idea of Universal Care, there would be no
question what would happen. According to the architechs of the ACA, that man
would be made comfortable, and receive minimal care until he died.Rather than looking for government solutions, why not look for ways to boost
charitable hospitals in your community? If there was a charitable hospital, he
could have received proper care.
"Prudently expanding Medicaid." Translation: we don't really want
to help ALL the poor people, do we? Of course not!
On monday I happened to be in the triage area of a local ER where I overheard
the conversation between the staff and an elderly gentlemen who turns out had
cancer. He had been dropped off by his family at the ER as he had not been able
to eat in 3 days. The staff was doing their best to stabilize him and make him
comfortable. As it turns out this was not this mans first visit.
Since he lacks proper insurance, and a regular primary care provider, the best
his family was able to do was when he got bad, drop him off at ER, where he
would get stabilizing services, and then released back out to his family for
care. There was no ongoing management of his care except for that which he is
receiving through ER services.I am not sure what the final version
of US health care will be, but the current system, with or without Obamacare is
broken. No human should have to spend their finals days fighting cancer the way
this man was.
"We applaud the leaders of the House...We thank the the members of the
Senate" I don't. Expanding medicaid to cover the poor by using our
federal taxes is by far and away the best solution. There are problems with the
ACA but expanding medicaid isn't one of them.
Re: Thid Barker "With the expansion of Medicaid as a single payer program,
what then is the purpose of Obamacare? " The purpose of Obamacare is to
extend health care benefits to those currently uninsured, while at the same time
preserving the private health insurance business.The ACA extends
coverage help to those above the poverty level - the working near poor. Wealth
redistribution - sure. That's what socialism is about. That's what
we did when we rescued the banking business in 2008-2009. Now there was (and
is) wealth redistribution! Reciprocity and redistribution is the foundation of
With the expansion of Medicaid as a single payer program, what then is the
purpose of Obamacare? It can not be to provide healthcare insurance to the poor
since we already have Medicaid. The only answer is wealth re-distribution. To
force millions to work for that which they will not receive so others can
receive what they did not work for. We once fought a civil war to end some
people being forced to work for that which they will not receive so others may
receive without working didn't we?
I appreciate the position taken here by the Deseret News. I differ from the
D-News in that I wanted the big profit-driven insurance business out of American
health care altogether. Obama and you saw fit to leave it in place. So we have
to make the best of it.Obama has shown himself to be a very
reasonable man, and he is likely to give Governor Herbert what he wants.
Let's get on with it. As an aside, I think the president is
being uncommonly good-natured in playing ball with a state which will give him
nothing but vilification in return. This shows he overwhelmingly means well.