A Privilege ?

[ken123]

Today being interviewed on MSNBC Congressman Zach Wamp ( R - Tenn) called health care a privilege, for some people. I wonder if food is next on " the privilege list ", as measured by the GOP?

[charliechaplinfan]

Health care is a basic human need. You're never going to get an ideal system, sure there will be people who misuse it and there will be some who use it who've never contributed a penny to it during their adult lives. What are we meant to do for these people, close the hospital doors on them, refuse them treatment? Could anyone here tell a person who needed medical assistance that they couldn't have it because they can't afford it?

[movieman1957]

Alison:

No hospital can turn anyone away. This has become a problem because people use an emergency room as their primary care physician. Often they can't pay so it becomes a burden on the tax payer. No one is denying anyone care. The major problem is how to fix it. No better than we run our Medicare system it seems hard to imagine we could properly run such a large scale program.

[silentscreen]

No kidding. All this gets taken out of context without the true meaning to statements being understood. I had to go to an emergency room in the small town where my Mom lives because it was so early in the morning nothing else was open there. I do have insurance, but they didn't ask me about that when I was admitted, plus there were signs posted everywhere saying that they couldn't refuse care becaue of abilitiy to pay. We also have a chairity hospital here in Dallas.

Off topic, but I guess President Obama considers it a privilege to watch American movies. While Prime Minister Brown gave him some thoughtful, unique, and historical gifts on his visit here, President Obama returned the favor by giving him a set of 25 DVD's. I've never been so embarrassed in my life!Not anything there the Prime Minister couldn't have bought from Blockbuster or Amazon. In my opinion, just plain tacky.

[charliechaplinfan]

Alison:

No hospital can turn anyone away. This has become a problem because people use an emergency room as their primary care physician. Often they can't pay so it becomes a burden on the tax payer. No one is denying anyone care. The major problem is how to fix it. No better than we run our Medicare system it seems hard to imagine we could properly run such a large scale program.

Thanks for filling me in, I wasn't trying to blame America for looking the other way when someone who couldn't afford to pay needed treatment, rather I was trying to make the statement about the individual, as in what person could deny someone medical assistance. I never thought for one moment that you let your needy suffer.

It's very hard to find a system that suits most people. In America you pay the money from your wage packet, that's what we do too only it's taken out as tax and the only say we get on how our money is spent is at election time.

i think for both our countries there seems to be a class of people who have no intention of contributing to the wealth or for the benefit of their country. Personally I don't know how they can hold their heads up high, there's no dignity in the way they live their lives. How they can take and never give, what makes them think life is a free ride for them. Often these are the people who drink, eat and smoke to excess too and need medical assistance too. I honestly don't know what the answer is for these people.

Brenda, your comment about Obama's gift did make us both laugh here but for the wrong reason, it isn't his greatest decision, I think he needs to get another gift buyer.

[mrsl]

Well, I guess I'll try again, since my last post effort did not go through. Between losing my job and getting medicare, a matter of 2 years, when I knew I had pneumonia, I went directly to the ER rather than my doctor. I could barely breathe so they had to take care of me, and I ended up in the hospital for a week, left on Saturday, and returned on Sunday night with my stroke blaming the care I was given. Sometimes, the oath works - "First, Do No Harm".

As for the Prime Minister, I see nothing wrong with Obama giving him/her some DVD's since I doubt that he/she frequents the local Blockbuster very often to buy movies. In order to get a movie, he/she would have to have a name which they are not likely to know and have to send a page or scribe to rent it, this way he/she has a variety at hand to choose from.

Anne

[jdb1]

Thanks for filling me in, I wasn't trying to blame America for looking the other way when someone who couldn't afford to pay needed treatment, rather I was trying to make the statement about the individual, as in what person could deny someone medical assistance. I never thought for one moment that you let your needy suffer.

It's very hard to find a system that suits most people. In America you pay the money from your wage packet, that's what we do too only it's taken out as tax and the only say we get on how our money is spent is at election time.

Alison, you do understand, I hope, that in this country there is no National Health system like the kind you have in the UK. Everyone is responsibile for finding their own health care, and most of us depend on our employers to find health insurance for us, which they can do cheaper than we can do ourselves, since their employees are considered a group, and can get less expensive "group rates." However, the insurance coverage comes from private companies, not from the state, and it seems to me that whatever benefits we do get from the insurers decrease every year, while our premium payments increase.

Individual, "self-pay" insurance policies are frighteningly expensive. My poor daughter, out of school and unemployed, lost her coverage as my dependent when she graduated from university. I have purchased hospitalization-only coverage for her; the "major medical" coverage, which would include doctor visits and drug costs, was completely beyond my means. Even so, paying for this extra insurance coverage is stretching my already modest income. It's very hard to support two people on a clerical worker's salary in one of the world's most expensive cities.

I just don't get this having to scramble to pay ever-higher healthcare costs. Why isn't our government approaching the healthcare providers and saying "You are charging too much. Lower your costs." The media pundits will drag out charts to show how much more expensive it is every year to provide healthcare, but I don't buy it. Huge profits are being made here, and we are suffering for it.

[charliechaplinfan]

I do know that you don't have a National Health system like us and that you contribute out of your own earnings. What I didn't realise is that some of the payments are crippling and the rates are getting higher and higher and higher all the time.

Would this then not be the time to create a national health system for America? I struggle to see why there would be an argument against setting one up if the system you have already is full of holes.

Providing care for everyone is bound to work out cheaper as a national health contribution. Perhaps the extra money for consumers could stimulate the economy. Of course the health insurance companies won't like it but there is still room in the market for them, employers here often have medical insurance policies, this usually means you can see someone straight away instead of joining a waiting list. These are job perks not things you pay extra for.

[silentscreen]

[quote="mrsl"}

As for the Prime Minister, I see nothing wrong with Obama giving him/her some DVD's since I doubt that he/she frequents the local Blockbuster very often to buy movies. In order to get a movie, he/she would have to have a name which they are not likely to know and have to send a page or scribe to rent it, this way he/she has a variety at hand to choose from.

Anne[/quote]

First off Anne, my heart goes out to you with your misfortunes.

Secondly, It was not a thoughtful gift. We would all love that gift here, but Prime Minister Brown has been blind in his left eye since he was sixteen, and is almost blind in his right eye because of a damaged retina. How much research would it have taken to find that out? Prime Minister Brown gave President Obama a pen holder made from an anti slavery ship that was the sister ship of the one that President Obama's desk is made from, a complete set of a first edition of Winston Churchill's biography, and I believe some other nice and very thoughtful gift. No, just like with former President Bush, I'm going to call President Obama out on every mistake he makes. He is not Jesus as his former pastor says.

[SSO Admins]

Would this then not be the time to create a national health system for America? I struggle to see why there would be an argument against setting one up if the system you have already is full of holes.

The argument is based in ideology -- the belief that private systems are inherently superior to government ones, even when as in this case they are clearly not.

Yes, it would be much cheaper to have government supplied health care. Yes, it would be more efficient. The pushback comes from those who believe that government is simply by its nature inefficient and expensive and think that this is worse than having basic life necessities in the hands of those motivated by profit.

The real horror of our system, aside from the fact that many people simply have no access at all, is that our insurance companies are motivated to look for ways to deny care -- because of pre-existing conditions, or because you don't fit within the regulations imposed by your plan.

My aunt, who is very politically conservative, has a boyfriend without any access to care. He was self employed, and was dropped by his insurance after a bout with cancer. None of the companies will insure him because of this. His cancer has returned, and they're facing bankruptcy in spite of being very well off. Frequently, we don't even get the health care we pay for even if we're insured.

Also, in the US we tend to blame the poor for being poor, assuming that it is in all cases their own fault.

It's a pretty horrible state of affairs.

[charliechaplinfan]

Jon, what you say makes an even bigger case for nationalised healthcare. The first thing any insurance company looks at when it faces a claim is 'how can we get out of paying this?' It shouldn't be a surprise to me that the medical insurance companies do the same.

Yes, government is expensive and idle people will get something for nothing but from what's been said here they get that anyway. There is a big difference between the honest poor and layabouts. Judith's daughter and your aunt's boyfriend are just two ordinary people and I'm sure others on this board will know of other cases.

I can't understand why some Americans would be frightened by this change? It's not a step towards socialism, which to me is an ideology that has been shown time and again not to work but it is a step towards equality for a basic human need. I'm not sitting here trying to pick holes in the American way of government and healthcare. I can pick quite large holes in our government and where my tax money goes to but one thing I'm wholeheartedly in support of paying for is our National Health service.

[jdb1]

As with most arguments that purport to be political, it's really a question of money: the real sticking point here is probably that people are afraid it's going to cost them more money, and if that money is in the form of taxes, it sounds too scary. But I say, what's the difference, if insurance premiums are already being taken out of my paycheck as deductions? They can just as easily be paid to a national healthcare system as to the current private insurers, can't they? This country now pays so much for its private healthcare, and there are so many insurers and providers the whole thing is just chaotic -- wouldn't it be better to pay less of that money into a unified healthcare system?

Also, in the US we tend to blame the poor for being poor, assuming that it is in all cases their own fault.

I agree with you Jon, that not being rich is seen by some people as a failing. However, in my case, for example, being "poor" is indeed my fault, because I've decided to live a life that doesn't center around the pursuit of the dollar. But just because I'm not a fanatical capitalist doesn't make me a bad American, and shouldn't mean that I'm denied any of the basic humans rights our country likes to tout as available to everyone, and that includes the right to an affordable place to live and to affordable and effective healthcare. If I have to help pay for that with something called a "tax" rather than something called an "insurance premium," that's OK with me.

[charliechaplinfan]

Judith, I think you put in a nutshell what my thoughts are about national care versus private care. I do have a private policy through work, it's fine for consultation but if you have a real emergency you go via the NHS because it's geared up for emergencies.

There's no shame in being poor or not pursuing the dollar but don't mention it at work, everyone is meant to reach for the top and the money success brings . What's wrong with wanting to rub along in the middle somewhere earning enough to cover the necessities and a little left over for treats. Health, faith, family and nature I value all of them more than my bank balance or 'career'.

[mrsl]

Silent screen:

Wow, obviously I've been out of the loop for a couple of weeks, so I wasn't aware of the facts about the Prime Minister. Taken at simply face value, movies is not so bad a gift, but given the circumstances you explained, I'm appalled. Believe it or not, I will do my best to make sure that information is forwarded.

Anne

[Hollis]

God morning,

Has anyone here spoken to an individual that uses government health care in the USA, before speaking out on the subject? Talk to someone like me who is employing "nationalized" health care in the form of the Veteran's Administration (VA) and listen to the good and bad sides of the system before committing to governmental vs private sector care. The move toward "managed health care" started long ago and continues as we speak. You get what you pay for in most cases. The more you can pay in the form of premiums generally determines the level of care you receive. As an honorably discharged veteran, I'm entitled to VA care and I pay nothing but a small co-pay for certain medications. All diagnostics are performed at no cost to me and I'm even reimbursed for my travel expenses if I have to drive more than 50 miles to a VA hospital or clinic. How can I complain? If the doctor is overbooked (like private sector airlines often are) I wait. If medication is prescribed, I wait. From day one, back in boot camp (basic training), we were taught early on to "hurry up and wait" so I'm used to it and again, I can't complain because I'm not paying for it. Oh, I paid in advance in the form of taxes when I was able to work but I may in fact be receiving care in excess of what my taxes actually paid for. The bottom line is that the more you involve yourself in your own care and the better able you are to communicate your concerns to your physician, the better off you're going to be. That's true whether you're using a private sector physician or a government subsidized clinic. Some of us are able to use "national health care" because it's our right, while others receive their health care as a privilege due to different circumstances surrounding them, such as low income. The one concern I had when I entered into the VA system was the quality of the physicians that were employed there. Why weren't they in private practice where the opportunity to make the big dollars was? Were they employed by the VA because they weren't qualified to be on their own? Were they there because they felt that veterans deserved their services? How about not having to pay the exorbitant malpractice premiums that hang over the private sector? All valid questions to be sure, and all deserved to be answered honestly. Unfortunately, some of the doctors I've dealt with wouldn't provide me with the answers I felt I was entitled to. The biggest problem I see with national health care is the sheer number of people that will use the system and the lack of qualified physicians and other health care professionals to meet the needs of those people. Patients will face long waiting times and be rushed through their visits to the doctor just so the doctor can meet other patients that are scheduled. It's a double edged sword to be sure. There are no easy answers. Your thoughts?

As always,

Hollis