Hillary's Healthcare Plan

[Patroklos]

I know. Just pointing out.

I was always curious how they got away with that. Isn't that like going to China to buy DVDs?

[Wezil]

Not an issue I will even pretend to know enough speak to.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4560115.stm

Whilst teeth are important, you don't generally die if you can't afford to see one.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Whilst teeth are important, you don't generally die if you can't afford to see one.

So this doesn't seem to be true at all then:

Our system is not perfect, but it ensures that on the whole people get good quality treatment based on need rather than money.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Patroklos


I was always curious how they got away with that. Isn't that like going to China to buy DVDs?

No, more like going to Tiajuana to buy Kahlua.

[aneeshm]

Most people here are saying that emergency care is handled fine by the communist type of healthcare, whereas everything else is better handled by the capitalist system.

If you really, really want to bring the state into the business of health, why not try bringing it to emergency care first, instead of the whole thing at one go? This way, if a good equilibrium is achieved, great, and if it isn't then, then you can try out stuff.

Personally, I like the Indian system. It provides excellent service to the middle class and above. Two X-rays, ten or so personal consultations with an excellent doctor, the best in the city, along with a months' worth of daily dressings for my injured hand, along with all the medicines, and emergency care for after the accident, all within a few thousand rupees (between $75 and $150).

The problem is, there is so much poverty that there are people who can afford nothing at all. It's choices like there that depress me. There is an instinctive urge to say, "Let the government do it!", but they already do it, and don't do a very good job (there is a parallel government system, along with the private system). The few top government institutes attract the best talent, though.

[Zkribbler]

aneeshm --

Am I inferring correctly from you post that, although India provides health care, there is a "buy in" cost that only the rich and middle class can afford?

How does this work?

[Pekka]

I don't get this. Isn't medicare then communist/socialist already?

YOu aren't going to destroy the private entities away. If they offer better quality or services, people still go there if they can, just like in here. So they can compete and it still is an issue of money after all.

The best doctors often still work for the private ones, because they get much higher pay. So. If you want the best quality, you'll still pay for it. This is the order of it, you're not going to get rid of the private sector, which is OK, because they can lead the way taking new stuff into their use faster etc.

So anyway. Aren't you already commies for providing medicare?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Whilst teeth are important, you don't generally die if you can't afford to see one.

Unless you do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/09/AR2007090901855.html

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Pekka
So anyway. Aren't you already commies for providing medicare?

Semi-commies. The doctors still work in the private sector. It's the government that pays them tho.

[Kidlicious]

Greens call Sen. Clinton's health care mandate proposal a 'fraudulent, cynical, cruel' affront to Americans who need coverage

Monday, September 24, 2007

Contacts:
Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, mclarty@greens.org
Starlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805, starlene@gp.org

Dem plans are really billion-dollar subsidies for HMO-insurance campaign contributors, say Greens

Greens appeal to Dems who support Single-Payer/Medicare For All: America will not get real universal health care until some Greens get into Congress

WASHINGTON, DC -- Green Party leaders strongly criticized Sen. Hillary Clinton's health care reform plan, calling it a capitulation to private HMO and insurance corporations and an affront to Americans who lack adequate access to health care.

"Senator Clinton's $110-billion-per-year 'mandatory coverage' plan amounts to a gigantic subsidy for the HMO-insurance industry, while shifting the burden -- and the blame for lack of coverage -- onto people who desperately need health care," said John Battista, MD, former Green candidate for state representative in Connecticut and co-author of his state's single-payer legislation in 1999 (the Connecticut Health Care Security Act).

"As Michael Moore's documentary 'Sicko' showed, predatory insurance companies are the reason for America's health crisis, with 47 million uninsured and millions more whose coverage doesn't give them adequate treatment," added Dr. Battista. "Ms. Clinton's solution is to reward these companies for their greed, giving them more money. Ms. Clinton has been Congress's top recipient of money from the insurance industry [source: Center for Responsive Politics, <http://www.opensecrets.org>], which explains her dedication to corporate insurance and HMO profits."

The Green Party supports a Single-Payer national health plan, also called 'Medicare For All,' similar to the Canadian system, which would guarantee every American health care regardless of age, income, employment, or prior medical condition; allow choice of health care provider; provide low-cost or no-cost treatment and prescriptions (including certain forms of alternative medicine); and cost low- and middle-income Americans far less than they now pay for private or employer-based coverage by eliminating insurance and HMO company overhead.

Greens called Sen. Clinton's and other Democratic plans expensive and inefficient because of the duplication of administrative costs of multiple plans and because they offer fewer services in deference to profits. The US currently spends more that twice what other industrialized nations spend on health care: $7,129 per capita -- which would change only minimally under the Democratic plans.

For more on Green health care positions, visit <http://www.gp.org/organize/sicko.html>. For health care leaders in the Green Party Speakers Bureau, visit <http://gp.org/speakers/healthcare.shtml>.

"America doesn't need 'mandatory' coverage, America needs guaranteed health care," said Linda Manning Myatt, Michigan Green and spokesperson for the National Women's Caucus. "Unfortunately, all of the Democratic presidential candidates, except for Dennis Kucinich, are pandering for their insurance lobby friends. They care more about profits for their campaign contributors than about health care for the American people. Sen. Barack Obama has even admitted that his plan would sustain HMOs and insurance firms. Calling the Democrats' proposals 'universal health care' is fraudulent, cynical, and cruel."

Green leaders claim that Ms. Clinton promoted a disastrous reform plan in 1993, under her husband's administration, and has introduced an even worse plan in 2007. Greens have insisted that fair and accurate discussion of Single-Payer/Medicare For All be included in the media debate over health care.

"The only political party that supports Single-Payer Medicare For All is the Green Party," said Connecticut Green Justine McCabe, PhD, a psychologist and co-chair of the Green Party's International Committee. "We demand that the Green Party and Green candidates and other Single-Payer supporters be allowed to participate in the health care debate. Just as urgently, we need to get a few Greens elected to Congress. A few Green wins in congressional races in 2008 will jolt more Dems and even some Republicans into backing Single-Payer."

"Progressive Democrats and others who say they favor Single-Payer need to understand this point. American will not get Single-Payer until a non-corporate third party -- the Green Party -- gains a presence in Congress. If progressive, pro-Single-Payer Democrats insist on supporting Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or other corporate Democrats in the 2008 race, then they will be complicit in keeping Single-Payer off the table for years to come," said Dr. McCabe.

I'm already not liking Clinton II very much.

[dannubis]

Originally posted by PLATO
Just looking for info. Not prejudging their systems. However, any plan that requires a new outlay of $110 billion better be a damn good one.

How much did your adventure in Iraq cost you again ?

[Pekka]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Semi-commies. The doctors still work in the private sector. It's the government that pays them tho.

And that's what they do in here as well when you have more than a headache or upset stomach. It's also funny, because they'll do the more quality and serious things like that often, so you'll go to private sector anyway. But the reasoning also is that it's usually _cheaper_ to get it done there, so they'll gladly pay for it. Saves money .

Of course not in all cases, and they have deals like that. So the difference is that the doctor makes double the money, has more time for you, but somehow it's still cheaper. So they're not very good at handling money down there. That said, IMO some kind of a hybrid is needed, I'd also take out most of this insurance BS, makes no sense to me. Money is wasted on all kinds of crap, my priorities in tax usage is education, healthcare and that's pretty much about it.

BUT there's a point in using private sector and a bigger service at the same time. For example, it makes no sense to have a highly paid doctor to give you antibiotics or aspirine. These frequent and low impact things that are obvious, why waste the talent of good doctors? THese can be done in the public sector for everyone. If you had a cut or something small but you still need to get it checked out and fixed, I don't know what kind of propaganda you would have to think that you need the #1 doctor in the country to do it. It's really simple and there's no way to screw it up unless you're really bad.

It's funny, I've gotten the absolute worst service in the public sector, and excellent quality at the private sector, however, with small things, the best service is from these students who are studying to be doctors. They're interested, and they'll come up with good stuff as well. Plus they're more personal, they won't care s omuch about how much money they have to save, if you need an x-ray, you'll get it, because they're much more afraid of screwing up the treatment . Pretty good stuff also, very competent.

So anyway, I'd rather see a spread of resources and talent. And OF COURSE you can see who you want if you pay for it, there's always going to be that sector for sure. It doesn't go away, it's a good business.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by PLATO


I am interested on what any Canadians and British might have to say about government health care. ????

I love my N.H.S. . But then having spent the first six months of life in an incubator, I would say that.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by PLATO


"I am from the government...I am here to help"

Not one of Reagan's brighter or more accurate moments.

In 1900, the United States Army Yellow Fever Commission (often called simply “The Reed Commission” after its leader, Walter Reed) added to the list of great breakthroughs in military medicine. At experimental stations just outside Havana, Walter Reed and his assistants James Carroll, Aristides Agramonte, and Jesse Lazear proved that the Aedes aegypti mosquito was the vector for the yellow fever virus. Their work destroyed the popular notion that yellow fever spread by direct contact with infected people or “contaminated” objects and focused the people’s efforts on the eradication of the Aedes mosquito.

The team made its discovery while part of the American occupation force in Cuba in the wake of the Spanish-American War of 1898. Cuba was widely considered the primary breeding ground for yellow fever in the western hemisphere, so the post-war occupation seemed to be the perfect opportunity to study, and possibly eradicate, the disease at its source. Moreover, during the war, the U.S. army had been attacked by yellow fever. In fact, yellow fever, malaria, and dysentery accounted for far more casualties than bullets. The American government in Cuba under Governor-General Leonard Wood realized that, if Americans were to occupy Cuba “until political order was restored,” something had to be done to protect them from these deadly diseases. Thus, Governor-General Wood eagerly supported the Reed Commission’s research. This exhibit is a brief examination of the Commission’s discovery within its political and social context.

http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/library/historical/medical_history/yellow_fever/