Topic: Health Care in England Question

[edbikerii]

That's right, a measly 41 million people, compared to a massive 266 Million Americans who are insured and get excellent healthcare today.

However, there seems to be a major communications problem here.  Maybe I'm not speaking english or something.  Or maybe people have chosen to ignore the question because the answers make them unhappy.

WHY CAN'T THE US GOVERNMENT FIX MEDICAID, MEDICARE AND VA HOSPITALS?

Does anyone here actually think that the US government has done a good job with Medicaid, Medicare and VA Hospitals?

So, 41 Million out of 307 Million is 13%, leaving the other 87% insured.

A measly 41 Million people, eh.

[rhos1355]

I'd be interested in some comparisons from our Dutch members. I lived in the Netherlands in the '90s and at that time they had a superb and relatively cheap semi private semi state health insurance system. By the time I left '98 it was getting steadily more expensive. I have recently heard that it has gone the whole hog and become totally private. And expensive. Is this true?

[Bob Wessner]

http://www.justlanded.com/english/Netherlands/Netherlands-Guide/Health/Healthcare

[Duke McDukiedook]

That's right, a measly 41 million people, compared to a massive 266 Million Americans who are insured and get excellent healthcare today.

However, there seems to be a major communications problem here.  Maybe I'm not speaking english or something.  Or maybe people have chosen to ignore the question because the answers make them unhappy.

WHY CAN'T THE US GOVERNMENT FIX MEDICAID, MEDICARE AND VA HOSPITALS?

Does anyone here actually think that the US government has done a good job with Medicaid, Medicare and VA Hospitals?

So, 41 Million out of 307 Million is 13%, leaving the other 87% insured.

A measly 41 Million people, eh.

I agree, the government here always manages to shortchange the important things, that is why I am apprehensive about single payer.
Maybe if we could tie health care to terrorism we could get boatloads of money dumped into the system.

"If we can't insure the people, teh terrorists have already won!!"

[Frankenkit]

wow, what a novel concept- stating that protecting the health of our people is another form of civil defense. 

[demon78]

If anyone thinks about it Kit, it is, with world wide pandemics talked about and a possibility , are you going to want your lower class citizenry able to infect the rich ones.
Bill the demon.

[DammitDan]

Let's look at it in another perspective in an historical sense.

From 1923-1929, the unemployment rate was a steady 3.3 percent.  Between 1930 and 1931, it had jumped to 15.9%, and in 1933 it was 24.9%.  Over the next 7 years it slowly fell from the 25% high to around 15% in 1940, and 4.9% in 1942 (with the start of WWII).

(Source: http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030124ar03p1.htm)

That 15 percent rate (which you would consider "measly") spelled disaster for our economy and led many people to the brink of starvation.  Regardless of how you spin it, 13% is a big number, Ed.  Sure, there's no problems with the older, established adults who have jobs with benefits.  But considering all the young people vying for a place in the workforce during this recession, that uninsured percentage is only going to get higher.  Currently, 40 percent of low-income young people (aged 19-29, earning 200% poverty level or less) are running without health insurance.  (Source: http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7787.pdf).  This is a major problem that the free market cannot fix on its own.

[Bob Wessner]

Laminar Test. 

[edbikerii]

I had a thought-provoking discussion about healthcare with a friend last night.

Liberals talk as though conservatives just don't give a damn about poor children, the elderly, and the uninsured.  I guess it never occurred to many of them that most of the elderly are conservative, and that a large percentage of conservatives are caring parents and grandparents who are very concerned about children and families.

The fact is, NOBODY wants ~40Million people walking around without health insurance.  NOBODY.  Not liberals, not conservatives, NOBODY.  However, the problem goes beyond simplistic, splitting psychology, where a person is either good or bad, black or white, devil or angel, rich or poor.  The problem is more complicated than that, and the discussion should be on a higher level than that.

My argument is not that we don't need to improve the system, but rather that we do need to improve it without making it worse for the ~270 Million Americans that are insured today.  Is there some way that these systems can be improved without penalizing the hard working people whose taxes and jobs pay for it?  Is there some way to improve the system so that rationing doesn't cause people who need chemotherapy to wait for it until it is too late and their cancer has spread?  Is there some way to improve the system so that hard working doctors, nurses and medical staff are not penalized by having to negotiate with a monopoly employer (single payer)?  Is there some way to preserve the innovation that has led to the dramatic improvements the world has enjoyed recently because of the profit incentive to inventors and pharmaceutical companies, while still keeping the costs down?

Instead of bickering "across the aisle" with partisan rhetoric, we should acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses that our current healthcare system provides, and work on improving its flaws, since it does, in fact, work very well for ~270 Million Americans.

[HavocTurbo]

You say that it works well. Yet everyone I know has had problems with their insurance paying it's share.

My step mother, had to have her uterus and ovaries removed. She got her portion of the bill, which we paid, which was considerably less than the insurance companies portion. It took collectors calling her at home to get the insurance company to pay. Something like 7 months.

My step father, has serious heart problems due to stress, years of smoking and drinking, and 40+ years of being a Detective in the Youth Division. He has about 30 different medications that he is supposed to take daily. Supposed to be covered 100% by his PBPA Insurance plan from the state for retired police officers. They take almost a year to pay for things, if they do at all.

It's these things and situations that make me not opt for insurance. Why would I pay someone my whole life only to be hassled and given the run around when it came time for them to do their part.

[BobbyR]

My argument is not that we don't need to improve the system, but rather that we do need to improve it without making it worse for the ~270 Million Americans that are insured today.  Is there some way that these systems can be improved without penalizing the hard working people whose taxes and jobs pay for it?  Is there some way to improve the system so that rationing doesn't cause people who need chemotherapy to wait for it until it is too late and their cancer has spread?  

Is there some way to improve the system so that hard working doctors, nurses and medical staff are not penalized by having to negotiate with a monopoly employer (single payer)?  

Is there some way to preserve the innovation that has led to the dramatic improvements the world has enjoyed recently because of the profit incentive to inventors and pharmaceutical companies, while still keeping the costs down?

Instead of bickering "across the aisle" with partisan rhetoric, we should acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses that our current healthcare system provides, and work on improving its flaws, since it does, in fact, work very well for ~270 Million Americans.

My argument is not that we don't need to improve the system, but rather that we do need to improve it without making it worse for the ~270 Million Americans that are insured today.  Is there some way that these systems can be improved without penalizing the hard working people whose taxes and jobs pay for it?  Is there some way to improve the system so that rationing doesn't cause people who need chemotherapy to wait for it until it is too late and their cancer has spread?  
When I found that the number of uninsured had risen from your 37M to 41M, the disturbing part of the Census report is that the largest part of the growth was among the people with jobs, who's employers do not or have suspended offering health benefits. A surprising number are making $50- 70K per year. The number of poor has remained fairly stable.

Is there some way to improve the system so that hard working doctors, nurses and medical staff are not penalized by having to negotiate with a monopoly employer (single payer)?  

Under the NHS in the UK and France they don't spend all their time arguing with anyone, they simply treat you. The way the current system works your MD is paid to spend 12 minutes with you.

Is there some way to preserve the innovation that has led to the dramatic improvements the world has enjoyed recently because of the profit incentive to inventors and pharmaceutical companies, while still keeping the costs down?

Big Pharma has been spending all of their time recycling their old drugs to keep their patents and prices up. Dedicated University researchers actually do most of the work. A new acid controller called Zegerid by Norwich is nothing more than Priolsec and Sodium Bicarbonate in one pill. These crooks love to tell scare stories.

Is there some way to improve the system so that rationing doesn't cause people who need chemotherapy to wait for it until it is too late and their cancer has spread?  

My friend Alex a Canadian citizen and US Army Vietnam Vet was diagnosed with cancer in Toronto. He was diagnosed on a Monday and was in surgery on Tuesday, and began radiation and chemo while still in the Hospital. He was evaluated here at Sloan Kettering and they told him all that could be done was being done.

Many of the American Insurance companies do more rationing than the Governments. People have to file suit to get treatments approved.

Canada's "national" system is actually a set of provincial and territorial insurance systems governed by a federal law that says coverage is universal, and ensures that taxpayers, not patient fees, pay for primary medical services so everyone can afford them. Full text is here http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-HealthcareReform/idUSTRE56S37T20090729?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0


It is time Bill, we have to unwrap ourselves from the Flag, take a step back and say this is broken and fix it. I think Washinton, Jefferson, Franklin and some other notables went through that exercise, and some changes were made.    
 

[edbikerii]

When I found that the number of uninsured had risen from your 37M to 41M, the disturbing part of the Census report is that the largest part of the growth was among the people with jobs, who's employers do not or have suspended offering health benefits. A surprising number are making $50- 70K per year. The number of poor has remained fairly stable.

And how does that change anything I just said?  Are you looking to argue with me, or are you agreeing with me?  It does not surprise me that $50-$70K per year are the fastest growing group, because that is just about where Medicaid stops paying for most people.  I guess the Medicaid administrators believe that people who earn that much money should be able to pay for it themselves.  I don't know, perhaps if Medicaid stopped paying for elective surgeries like lap-bands and stomach-stapling, maybe they could cover more of these people.

Under the NHS in the UK and France they don't spend all their time arguing with anyone, they simply treat you. The way the current system works your MD is paid to spend 12 minutes with you.

Well sometimes 12 minutes with a patient just isn't enough.  All the arguing goes on in the homes when the taxpayers' paychecks are reduced and their cost of living is increased.

Big Pharma has been spending all of their time recycling their old drugs to keep their patents and prices up. Dedicated University researchers actually do most of the work. A new acid controller called Zegerid by Norwich is nothing more than Priolsec and Sodium Bicarbonate in one pill. These crooks love to tell scare stories.

Ooooh, "Big Pharma".  There you go again with your labeling and scaremongering tactics.  I'm not falling for it, and frankly, neither should you.  The "evil" big pharma companies have provided us with several life-saving drugs recently, including the highly effective chemotherapy agent Avastin, various heart-attack and stroke preventing cholesterol medications and many, many more.  Don't forget GE's constant development of PET and CT scan equipment that gets more and more effective each year.  Ironically, these life-saving and life-extending innovations have made the health care problem worse by causing our population to live longer, driving up other health-care costs.

My friend Alex a Canadian citizen and US Army Vietnam Vet was diagnosed with cancer in Toronto. He was diagnosed on a Monday and was in surgery on Tuesday, and began radiation and chemo while still in the Hospital. He was evaluated here at Sloan Kettering and they told him all that could be done was being done.

Alex is a lucky man.  Sloan Kettering is the world's foremost cancer research hospital.  If they said that he got the best course of treatment for his cancer, then I'm sure he did.  I'd be willing to bet that the course of treatment he received was developed at Sloan Kettering in the first place, as a large majority of cancer treatments are.

Many of the American Insurance companies do more rationing than the Governments. People have to file suit to get treatments approved.

Yes, I'm sure there are cost-cutting efforts in place in American Insurance companies, too.  I've had meds denied to me even though my doctors felt that they were necessary.  After a few phone calls and a few days, I received every one of the treatments I needed, with nothing more than my agreed-upon co-pay out of my pocket.

Canada's "national" system is actually a set of provincial and territorial insurance systems governed by a federal law that says coverage is universal, and ensures that taxpayers, not patient fees, pay for primary medical services so everyone can afford them. Full text is here http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-HealthcareReform/idUSTRE56S37T20090729?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

Yes, just like Medicaid.  Medicaid is, in my opinion and many others', a horrible failure here in the US.  Sure, there are patients who get elective surgeries paid for when private insurance would not pay, but there are many more who are not insured for basic, necessary treatments.  I've seen first hand that Medicaid patients have a car service pick them up at their homes and deliver them to New York Hospital for treatment, whereas taxpayers with private insurance have to fend for themselves.  Why not cut down on the excessive Medicaid perks, and instead cover some of those ~40 million people?

[HavocTurbo]

Under the NHS in the UK and France they don't spend all their time arguing with anyone, they simply treat you. The way the current system works your MD is paid to spend 12 minutes with you.

Well sometimes 12 minutes with a patient just isn't enough.  All the arguing goes on in the homes when the taxpayers' paychecks are reduced and their cost of living is increased.

I agree that 12 minutes isn’t enough. But sadly that’s the way it is here. Another wonderful result of the crappy system we have in the US.

Many of the American Insurance companies do more rationing than the Governments. People have to file suit to get treatments approved.

Yes, I'm sure there are cost-cutting efforts in place in American Insurance companies, too.  I've had meds denied to me even though my doctors felt that they were necessary.  After a few phone calls and a few days, I received every one of the treatments I needed, with nothing more than my agreed-upon co-pay out of my pocket.

You haven’t seen or heard anything about this? Cost-cutting is not only common place but rampant in the insurance industry. Whatever happened to doing the right thing? People who pay all of their working lives into their private insurance policies are then denied when they need it the most because it is too much of a risk. Who are they to determine what is or isn’t a risk when it is MY money we are talking about here? If I were to invest my money with a brokerage house and never saw a return, then decided to take my money elsewhere and was told no… because it is too high of a risk… Someone would be needing a quick funeral.

You should have never needed to make those phone calls in the first place. Your money from your premiums is going to pay for those meds. If your doctor says you need them.. no questions should be asked. Plain and simple. You were just an attempted victim of cost cutting.

Yes, just like Medicaid.  Medicaid is, in my opinion and many others', a horrible failure here in the US.  Sure, there are patients who get elective surgeries paid for when private insurance would not pay, but there are many more who are not insured for basic, necessary treatments.  I've seen first hand that Medicaid patients have a car service pick them up at their homes and deliver them to New York Hospital for treatment, whereas taxpayers with private insurance have to fend for themselves.  Why not cut down on the excessive Medicaid perks, and instead cover some of those ~40 million people?

I completely agree. But don’t let your politicians hear you. Or the insurance companies. Or the medical supply companies. Or the pharma companies. Or anyone else making hundreds of millions of dollars off the medical industry.

We are too much a country of free enterprise. To the point where everyone thinks it’s their right to screw and swindle anyone and everyone they can because this is a “free market economy”. So ok, screw and swindle away. But should you ever need help you are the first and loudest squeaky wheel of them all. Demanding help because it is your right to be free and happy.

Community and social morals need to be brought back. People need to look out for each other. Help each other in times of need. Knowing that help will be there for them if they fall. That’s what community is about. That’s what country is about. It’s what my fathers and grandfathers died for. Not the right to take everything and give nothing back.

[edbikerii]

You should have never needed to make those phone calls in the first place. Your money from your premiums is going to pay for those meds. If your doctor says you need them.. no questions should be asked. Plain and simple. You were just an attempted victim of cost cutting.

While I agree with much of what you said, I will ask you to think about this aspect from a different angle.  Have you ever gone to a doctor and had them prescribe a costly test or medicine simply because they were going to profit from having prescribed it?  I used to use a "medical group" office that was owned by the same doctors that owned the "radiology group" down the block.  It was amazing how often those doctors prescribed ultrasounds and upper GI scans when these tests were not appropriate.

This is why the insurance companies need to have controls in place.  The same controls would be well advised for any system.  I wish Medicaid had such controls in place to control costs.  That way they could insure more people.

Something else that my insurance company instituted was a "hotline" where a patient with a non-emergency could just call an 800 number and get free advice from an on-call Nurse Practitioner without having to visit a doctor or an emergency room.  This is pure genius.  Why can't Medicaid do this?  It would only be better if they could call in prescriptions to your pharmacy, too.

[HavocTurbo]

While I agree with much of what you said, I will ask you to think about this aspect from a different angle.  Have you ever gone to a doctor and had them prescribe a costly test or medicine simply because they were going to profit from having prescribed it?  I used to use a "medical group" office that was owned by the same doctors that owned the "radiology group" down the block.  It was amazing how often those doctors prescribed ultrasounds and upper GI scans when these tests were not appropriate.

This is why the insurance companies need to have controls in place.  The same controls would be well advised for any system.  I wish Medicaid had such controls in place to control costs.  That way they could insure more people.

Something else that my insurance company instituted was a "hotline" where a patient with a non-emergency could just call an 800 number and get free advice from an on-call Nurse Practitioner without having to visit a doctor or an emergency room.  This is pure genius.  Why can't Medicaid do this?  It would only be better if they could call in prescriptions to your pharmacy, too.

I'm all for checks and balances. But the problem is that no matter what we put into place, there are always loopholes stuffed in the wording that allows people in certain positions to take serious advantage of these programs.

Whether its supplies, care, follow-up, testing, or the doctors themselves.

We have forgotten as a whole that the point of medical care is not to make as much money as possible, but to provide the best care that we can for people who need it.

[edbikerii]

We have forgotten as a whole that the point of medical care is not to make as much money as possible, but to provide the best care that we can for people who need it.

Yes, that sounds very altruistic, but realistically, I want the best and brightest people providing healthcare, not the most altruistic.  Let's face it, some of the best surgeons, inventors, and even chemists like to make money so their families can have nice things.  In fact, some of them are even willing to risk their own money to bring new inventions or drugs to market so that they can potentially make more money.  Take away that incentive, and you lose the innovation, and progress stops.

I want the newest, most promising chemotherapy, even if an "evil" pharma company makes a profit on it.  I'm happy to help them get rich if it is going to save more lives.  Best part of all is that making the "evil" pharma companies "rich" means that the value of our pension funds and 401Ks goes up, too, since WE are the owners of these "evil" companies in the first place.  Kinda ironic how publicly traded companies are majority owned by pension funds and 401K investors.  The "evil", greedy capitalists are US, because we want to have big screen TVs, BMWs, Ducatis and relaxing retirements someday.  Funny how capitalism works, isn't it?

Sure, there are many out there who break the rules and commit fraud (Madoff, for example), but the vast majority of money in the stock market is in pension funds that are controlled by UNIONS like TIAA-CREF and pension fund managers like Fidelity.

[DammitDan]

Yes, that sounds very altruistic, but realistically, I want the best and brightest people providing healthcare, not the most altruistic.  Let's face it, some of the best surgeons, inventors, and even chemists like to make money so their families can have nice things.  In fact, some of them are even willing to risk their own money to bring new inventions or drugs to market so that they can potentially make more money.  Take away that incentive, and you lose the innovation, and progress stops.

Doctors who are only "in it for they money" don't make it very far unless they find a specialized field where THEY are the only option.  I believe the majority of doctors really do have an altruistic spirit, as they got into the medical field for both the chance to help people and for the prestige of being a doctor.

Besides, the best and the brightest already ARE providing healthcare.  That's what the years of education and years more of intensive training are for.  Why would someone who is only driven by monetary gain choose a field where you have to work SO HARD to even begin to see a profit?  There are many more lucrative careers out there which require less training and far less on-the-job hours.  That means there has to be a "higher power" than more green driving most doctors in the medical field.

I want the newest, most promising chemotherapy, even if an "evil" pharma company makes a profit on it.  I'm happy to help them get rich if it is going to save more lives.  Best part of all is that making the "evil" pharma companies "rich" means that the value of our pension funds and 401Ks goes up, too, since WE are the owners of these "evil" companies in the first place.  Kinda ironic how publicly traded companies are majority owned by pension funds and 401K investors.  The "evil", greedy capitalists are US, because we want to have big screen TVs, BMWs, Ducatis and relaxing retirements someday.  Funny how capitalism works, isn't it?

This isn't Capitalism, this is Trickle-Down Economics.  Make the corporations (a.k.a. rich people) richer, and the positive effects will eventually trickle back down to the little guy.  It didn't work when Reagan was Supreme Potentate, it won't work now, and it certainly won't work in the future.  Capitalism is the competition of many companies making the same product to make a profit (not to help people).  In the process, innovation occurs and gives some companies a leg-up over the rest.  What's wrong when we apply this to PharmaCorps?  There are only a few viable Pharmaceutical companies, meaning there is less competition, meaning there is less need to innovate.  And even if they do innovate, there is incentive to hold new drugs from the market to drive up prices.  Not to mention collusion with Healthcare Insurance providers to maintain artificially high costs.

If anything, I would say the Pharmaceutical Corporations and Insurance providers are more in it for the money than the doctors are.  I would rather see more people being helped than see rich corporations' stocks go up.  Unfortunately, like you said, we are by nature a Capitalist "Every Man For Himself" society.

[edbikerii]

Dan, you've got some serious misunderstandings about how capitalism works.  Who do you think owns most of the shares in those publicly-traded companies?  Hint: they are publicly-traded, A/K/A public companies.  I know it isn't a fair question, because I actually work in the business, and I KNOW who the biggest shareholders are - hint: I already told you.  Ironic, isn't it?

Yes, I try to explain to my children that they should strive to be surgeons because 1) they can help people and 2) they can make a good living and live comfortable lives.  Again, you are afflicted with the same splitting/black & white/good vs. evil/rich vs. poor deviant beliefs.  Sorry, but NOBODY is truly 100% altruistic to their own detriment.  Such people would never manage to succeed at ANYTHING, let alone become surgeons.  Normal people have a healthy balance between their own self-interest and the interests of others for the good of all mankind.

Yes, that sounds very altruistic, but realistically, I want the best and brightest people providing healthcare, not the most altruistic.  Let's face it, some of the best surgeons, inventors, and even chemists like to make money so their families can have nice things.  In fact, some of them are even willing to risk their own money to bring new inventions or drugs to market so that they can potentially make more money.  Take away that incentive, and you lose the innovation, and progress stops.

Doctors who are only "in it for they money" don't make it very far unless they find a specialized field where THEY are the only option.  I believe the majority of doctors really do have an altruistic spirit, as they got into the medical field for both the chance to help people and for the prestige of being a doctor.

Besides, the best and the brightest already ARE providing healthcare.  That's what the years of education and years more of intensive training are for.  Why would someone who is only driven by monetary gain choose a field where you have to work SO HARD to even begin to see a profit?  There are many more lucrative careers out there which require less training and far less on-the-job hours.  That means there has to be a "higher power" than more green driving most doctors in the medical field.

I want the newest, most promising chemotherapy, even if an "evil" pharma company makes a profit on it.  I'm happy to help them get rich if it is going to save more lives.  Best part of all is that making the "evil" pharma companies "rich" means that the value of our pension funds and 401Ks goes up, too, since WE are the owners of these "evil" companies in the first place.  Kinda ironic how publicly traded companies are majority owned by pension funds and 401K investors.  The "evil", greedy capitalists are US, because we want to have big screen TVs, BMWs, Ducatis and relaxing retirements someday.  Funny how capitalism works, isn't it?

This isn't Capitalism, this is Trickle-Down Economics.  Make the corporations (a.k.a. rich people) richer, and the positive effects will eventually trickle back down to the little guy.  It didn't work when Reagan was Supreme Potentate, it won't work now, and it certainly won't work in the future.  Capitalism is the competition of many companies making the same product to make a profit (not to help people).  In the process, innovation occurs and gives some companies a leg-up over the rest.  What's wrong when we apply this to PharmaCorps?  There are only a few viable Pharmaceutical companies, meaning there is less competition, meaning there is less need to innovate.  And even if they do innovate, there is incentive to hold new drugs from the market to drive up prices.  Not to mention collusion with Healthcare Insurance providers to maintain artificially high costs.

If anything, I would say the Pharmaceutical Corporations and Insurance providers are more in it for the money than the doctors are.  I would rather see more people being helped than see rich corporations' stocks go up.  Unfortunately, like you said, we are by nature a Capitalist "Every Man For Himself" society.

[HavocTurbo]

I'm sorry ED, and this might not apply.

But I'm not out to make money with my shop. I'm out to keep people on the road for as long as possible. Sure other shops provide better follow up service, sure their prices are extremely high for labor, parts, accessories, services. They have huge amounts of overhead.

But I only charge what I need to keep the doors open and the power tools working. Sometimes people call and need help and they cannot afford the labor but only the parts. In almost every case I am willing to drop the labor to keep them on the road.

What I am rewarded with is an extremely loyal customer base, that will go out of their way to do business with me.

Why can't the medical field and all of it's sub-categories act that way? Why does it have to be about making money first and helping people later?

Your talk about how the economy works is fine. But I don't own stocks. I don't have a 401k. What I have is a savings account, and various forms of "deposits" in my home for rainy days.

I don't own parts of companies, nor do I want to. I am much more satisfied with what I have and what I earn versus striving to have better things than my neighbors.

If more people opened their eyes and say that you don't have to have the biggest and the best to make it, maybe we wouldn't be in this position we are in. With all sorts of giant corporations going bankrupt, and people who weren't born with money left wondering how they are going to pay their bills because the insurance company that they have paid for years when they didn't need it wasn't there to help them when they did.

[Frankenkit]

But I'm not out to make money with my shop. I'm out to keep people on the road for as long as possible. Sure other shops provide better follow up service, sure their prices are extremely high for labor, parts, accessories, services. They have huge amounts of overhead.

But I only charge what I need to keep the doors open and the power tools working. Sometimes people call and need help and they cannot afford the labor but only the parts. In almost every case I am willing to drop the labor to keep them on the road.

What I am rewarded with is an extremely loyal customer base, that will go out of their way to do business with me.

Why can't the medical field and all of it's sub-categories act that way? Why does it have to be about making money first and helping people later?

HT, I truly and sincerely wish it did.  There are a lot of medical staff out there who do truly feel that way, and a lot of them are pushing for some sort of universal health care, or a way to make healthcare truly affordable to the masses without a web of bureaucratic red tape.  They probably also work for non-profit hospitals.  ...but not all of them because to be frank, we all need jobs, too.

I think when it comes down to it, it will be quite a while before we have a decent universal health care system, if we ever do adopt it.  The US has a very hard time, it seems, taking examples from other countries and adapting them to its needs.  We either are the 'Joneses' to be kept up with or we delude ourselves into believing that such trends are unworthy of our efforts.  Examples to be seen are within human rights and obviously the health care system. 

As we have not pioneered the health care system, we will probably dismiss the idea as something inferior and dysfunctional and hobble along with our own broken system, blinded by our false pride. 

In the interim, I suspect we would all do well to help support foundations and charities for specific research etc the best we can.

[shacolaid]

Interestingly I transported an Amish infant last night about 80 miles from Pittsburgh to CHP. The infant had a severe cleft palate and a congenital disease called Pierre Robin which essentially means his lower jaw is extremely small. It makes his airway very difficult.

Our team flew by helicopter to the referring nursery. We assessed the infant and readied him for transport in our isolette. When we went to speak with the family, the father stated he did not want us flying his son back to Pittsburgh, but rather transport him via ambulance. The ambulance ride would have been about 2 hours v 30 min helicopter flight.

Now, the Amish do travel in cars as long as someone else is driving.

We had to convince this father that his son needed to be seen as soon as possible by a Pediatric Surgeon, or risk having difficulty breathing in the back of the ambulance. The father finally agreed.

The concern the Amish have is that the Father's entire community will be responsible for paying the flight, not just the father's family. The cost of a flight could be close to $10,000. Quite a bit of money and the hospital bills have not come yet.
Just something to think about.

Additionally, As congress continues to work on a comprehensive health plan, who is overseeing Congress? Are there physicians, nurses, pharmacists, respiratory therapists, Xray technicians, etc involved in crafting this plan? Who are the experts? Who is to say how many MD visits one is allowed in one year? What types of care is covered? Is my pregnant wife's OB visits covered for all 9 months? What about immunizations? Are we going to be required to have all immunizations the govt says we need? What about people that refuse the shots? What about end of life care? Will the govt/NHI say when to stop treating the elderly or the very sick?
I just have a ton of questions about how this will all play out.

[winnipeg550guy]

 Getting back to the Health care issue, In Canada most know it's free(my tax money) which results in endless lines of people at clinics for some of the most stupid little reasons like "I was coughing alot last night" or "my poo was green".
 And completely ridiculous things like Hip replacements or cataract removal for people in their 90's which creates an enormous back log in the system.
 And here I am being a young 39, non-smoker, with a recently found lump on my left nut but I may have to wait anywhere from 2-6 months to get in for CT scan or MRI because of these stupid delays in this "Free" system. Where as I can and most likely will travel a couple hours across the US border into North Dakota and pay a few hundred bucks out of my own pocket and get it done in a week or 2.

 The "Free" system works great for people with hang nails, stubbed toes, cuts & bruises but it really sucks ass for serious problems.

[tortelvis]

I have to weigh in here as an American who spent over 25 years in England I know both sides of the coin. US health care sucks. Period. When a child can be left to die from a treatable condition because the parents cannot afford the extortionate costs there is something seriously wrong with the "system". The English have an expression:
I'm all right, Jack, pull up the ladder." I see this attitude here, one of "I have mine and could care less about yours". Now I am hearing that the majority of us don't want a government healthcare system, mainly because people are scared of losing what they have. I guess caring about my fellow Americans mahes me a commie bastard. How can anyone justify over 40 million Americans with no healthcare being acceptable? We are talking about people's lives! Has it really come to this, that money is the ONLY thing that matters? For 25 years I worked and paid into the NHS every week. Occasionally I had cause to visit the doctor and not once did I have to check my bank balance to see if I could afford it. Prescriptions were capped at an affordable level and if God forbid, I was ever temporarily jobless, I could still recieve medical attention. I had a MAJOR accident outside Salisbury in 1998 and was signed off work for over two years. I cannot begin to imagine the cost of the excellent treatment that I received at Oddstock hospital over here. As to the rumour mongering I expect nothing less from the best politicians that special interest money can buy. It amazed me when I returned to find that those who can afford it are all on some type of regular medication. It seems that the majority of us think that is unacceptable to feel the slightest discomfort if there is a pill that might make it better. A common complaint I hear all the time is "They haven't got my meds right!" Well maybe if you tried a little diet and exercise you wouldn't need to fill your body with powerful chemicals to feel better. And this from a country obsessed with the War on Drugs. Please! The biggest drug dealers in the world are all listed on the stock exchange and we are the addicts. Of course I expect to be flamed and told to "go back". F**k you! This is my country and I hate what the greedy bastards have done to it. I hope to God you never have to face the very real chance that one of your loved ones will left to die because of a lack of money.

[MCRider]

I shouldn't but. HT, Bobby, Kit etc it's the same thing as always with "fast eddy" he's OK so to hell with everyone else, he's covered so 41 million who aren't and all the others that are under insured should drop off the world and not clutch at him. I should start to reread Dickens again except it would be depressing because I think it would point out that we haven't progressed much.
Bill the demon.

Without commenting on anything else, I'd like to comment on the 41 million. We like to think that the US has an element of "freedom of choice" more than most anyway, and its something we (I) treasure. Many of the 41M have made a choice not to buy healthcare they could otherwise afford. They would prefer to have tickets to the game or satellite TV, or extremely loud and expensive auto stereos with wheels I've heard cost many thousands of dollars or such.

Healthcare to them is an entitlement. Their children get 100% free care from medicaid and they go uncovered by choice.  There is plenty of data on this, and I live in an area that is chuck full of evidence.

IT is not right to screw up my healthcare coverage with which I am perfectly happy, in order to "extend coverage" to people who don't want it unless its given to them.

[edbikerii]

Winnipeg550guy,

DEFINITELY GET YOURSELF IN FOR A SCAN (or an ultrasound) ASAP.  It seems like you know this, but I'll re-state it for anyone who doesn't.  TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE WITH CANCER.  If you wait too long to treat it, it can spread, and become much worse, even terminal.

Good luck,

Ed

Getting back to the Health care issue, In Canada most know it's free(my tax money) which results in endless lines of people at clinics for some of the most stupid little reasons like "I was coughing alot last night" or "my poo was green".
 And completely ridiculous things like Hip replacements or cataract removal for people in their 90's which creates an enormous back log in the system.
 And here I am being a young 39, non-smoker, with a recently found lump on my left nut but I may have to wait anywhere from 2-6 months to get in for CT scan or MRI because of these stupid delays in this "Free" system. Where as I can and most likely will travel a couple hours across the US border into North Dakota and pay a few hundred bucks out of my own pocket and get it done in a week or 2.

 The "Free" system works great for people with hang nails, stubbed toes, cuts & bruises but it really sucks ass for serious problems.