Ted Kennedy would have died ....

[Libsmasher]

..... with NHS care.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Ted_Kennedy_Health_Care_/2008/06/05/101954.html

 

[Bunz]

And probably millions have died from a lack of insurance because they cant afford it or are denied it outright under our draconian insurance industry.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I would have died in America under what her have.

 

[PLC1]

The quality medical care Ted Kennedy quickly received after his brain cancer diagnosis would not be available to Americans if the U.S. adopted the healthcare policies advocated by the Massachusetts Senator and other liberals, an expert opines.

Would the same quality care be available to the average person under the current system?

"an expert opines"? Now, there is proof positive.

I have a little grand nephew who was born in Copenhagen. He was born with a condition that causes oxygen deficiency in newborns, and would have died had the hospital there not been ready for this unexpected eventuality.

Hospitals in Denmark routinely prepare for this condition, while those in the US do not.

The boy's grandfather, a staunch "Roosevelt sold the country down the river" kind of ultra conservative, told me that the boy would most likely have died had he been born here.

The boys father, a Jesus as personal god, very religious type, thinks that he was sent to Denmark as part of God's plan to save the child.

While I can neither confirm nor disprove the opinions of my relatives, I can confirm that a healthy little boy is now a part of the family, and most likely wouldn't have been under our "best health care system in the world."

My anecdote trumps yours.

 

[Libsmasher]

And probably millions have died from a lack of insurance because they cant afford it or are denied it outright under our draconian insurance industry.

Proof?

 

[Libsmasher]

Would the same quality care be available to the average person under the current system?

"an expert opines"? Now, there is proof positive.

I have a little grand nephew who was born in Copenhagen. He was born with a condition that causes oxygen deficiency in newborns, and would have died had the hospital there not been ready for this unexpected eventuality.

Hospitals in Denmark routinely prepare for this condition, while those in the US do not.

The boy's grandfather, a staunch "Roosevelt sold the country down the river" kind of ultra conservative, told me that the boy would most likely have died had he been born here.

The boys father, a Jesus as personal god, very religious type, thinks that he was sent to Denmark as part of God's plan to save the child.

While I can neither confirm nor disprove the opinions of my relatives, I can confirm that a healthy little boy is now a part of the family, and most likely wouldn't have been under our "best health care system in the world."

My anecdote trumps yours.

Not hardly - you offered an anecdote. My cited article gave evidence such as waiting times for MRIs in Canada (anyone in the US can get one within a few days at most), and the prohibition of a drug in the UK routinely used in the US for cases such as Kennedy's. Socialized medicine ALWAYS gets down to such limitations and rationing - "socialized medicine" is actually a misnomer - people are excluded from treatment in the NHS because the drugs/services they need were excluded from that year's budget - they are simply told that "nothing can be done", and sent home to die. "Socialized medicine".

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Proof?

What you need proof to prove to you that millions don't have coverage and they yes having no coverage actually means you can die from things you would not if Covered? If it was true that if you had no coverage, they would just do it anyway, why would anyone buy coverage?


Also all this Bull about under NHS X would happen...and talking about some other nation...Guess what, we can have a NHS and run it any way we want, we don't have to copy some other system. There is no current system you can even base what would happen, because you don't even know what would be covered or what would not, or anything about the system...as there are many versions of it talked about.

 

[Libsmasher]

What you need proof to prove to you that millions don't have coverage and they yes having no coverage actually means you can die from things you would not if Covered? If it was true that if you had no coverage, they would just do it anyway, why would anyone buy coverage?


Also all this Bull about under NHS X would happen...and talking about some other nation...Guess what, we can have a NHS and run it any way we want, we don't have to copy some other system. There is no current system you can even base what would happen, because you don't even know what would be covered or what would not, or anything about the system...as there are many versions of it talked about.

??

 

[PLC1]

Not hardly - you offered an anecdote.

As did you. My anecdote was about a family member, yours about a politician.

My cited article gave evidence such as waiting times for MRIs in Canada (anyone in the US can get one within a few days at most),

Hardly. Anyone with good insurance who actually needs an MRI can get one. People with very good insurance who don't need one are likely to get one as well, since the hospital can collect for unneeded as well as for needed medical tests.

and the prohibition of a drug in the UK routinely used in the US for cases such as Kennedy's.

Which is a result of "socialized" medicine, or something else?

Socialized medicine ALWAYS gets down to such limitations and rationing -

We have limitations and rationing as well. There are limitations to the ability of any system to provide medical care.

We also have the most expensive medical care in the world.

"socialized medicine" is actually a misnomer - people are excluded from treatment in the NHS because the drugs/services they need were excluded from that year's budget - they are simply told that "nothing can be done", and sent home to die. "Socialized medicine".

Yes, socialized medicine is a misnomer. Socialized medical insurance is a much more accurate term. No one is advocating that the government actually take over the hospitals and run them, at least no one that is likely to be taken seriously.

Here's another anecdote: My wife recently had an angiogram, a simple medical test that doesn't require a hospital stay, or surgery, or a multi-million dollar machine, or anything like that. The amount billed to the insurance, just for the hospital, was $17,000.

We can't afford prices like that much longer.

 

[Libsmasher]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Not hardly - you offered an anecdote.

As did you. My anecdote was about a family member, yours about a politician.

I'm not going to debate with you if you keep up this sort of silly-ass distortion in real time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
My cited article gave evidence such as waiting times for MRIs in Canada (anyone in the US can get one within a few days at most),

Hardly. Anyone with good insurance who actually needs an MRI can get one. People with very good insurance who don't need one are likely to get one as well, since the hospital can collect for unneeded as well as for needed medical tests.

Reread the above comment - the issue is not whether you can get one, but how long you have to wait. In 2007, the grand average is 10.1 weeks:

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/10/surgery-wait-times-in-canada-hit-record.html

What if you have a brain tumor but don't know it? Is the brain tumor going to suspend its damage for 10.1 weeks??? Why is this stuff so damn hard for libs to grasp???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
and the prohibition of a drug in the UK routinely used in the US for cases such as Kennedy's.

Which is a result of "socialized" medicine, or something else?

One again, "socialized medicine" and rationing go hand in hand - read up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libsmasher
Socialized medicine ALWAYS gets down to such limitations and rationing -

We have limitations and rationing as well. There are limitations to the ability of any system to provide medical care.

There is nothing in the US that approaches that in such systems as the NHS in the UK - see the "horror story" post above under world news. NOTHING like that, and certainly not to the degree and frequency, happens in the US. The closest thing to that in the US would be such as trauma centers closing down in LA county because they've been bankrupted by non-paying illegal aliens.

We also have the most expensive medical care in the world.

What's worse - "expensive", or "go home and drop dead - there's no money in the state budget for your ailment this year."

Here's another anecdote: My wife recently had an angiogram, a simple medical test that doesn't require a hospital stay, or surgery, or a multi-million dollar machine, or anything like that. The amount billed to the insurance, just for the hospital, was $17,000.

The reasons for the the expense of US medical care are well known - most can be fixed, as I ennumerated - again, see my NHS horror story thread.

 

[Bunz]

Libsmasher
You fail to deal with a very real, and pressing problem to millions of Americans. They work, and for any number of reasons, either dont have access to/or cant afford medical insurance through thier employer, or cannot afford the insurance on thier own. Meanwhile, those people when inflicted with various health issues, are less willing to seek medical treatment, either making thier situation potentially worse, or in terms of illness, risk spreading it to others. This is a overly simplified issue that is a major issue in matters of life and death to Americans.
There needs to be a reasonable way that Americans can have access to affordable health care. The way the system operates now is flawed very deeply.
Now NHS, or Socialized medicine or whatever right wing vomit you want to dish out, has proven it isnt going to minimize your health care any under our modern system. Those who can afford it, get better service. We are still a capitalist economy. There wont be a rationing of Xrays, or Botox injections.
France has a good system, as does Australia, and dozens of other countries. We are the wealthiest nation in the world. There is no excuse for American citizens going without a modern level of health care.

 

[Libsmasher]

Libsmasher
You fail to deal with a very real, and pressing problem to millions of Americans.

No, I didn't fail to deal with it - I offered some solutions in the NHS Horror story thread.

They work, and for any number of reasons, either dont have access to/or cant afford medical insurance through thier employer, or cannot afford the insurance on thier own.

"dont have access" is a meaningless lib political term. EVERYONE has access to american hospitals - even illegal aliens, who are bankrupting them. The problem isn't lack of access, it's TOO MUCH access. Also, what does the "can't afford" really mean?

- They spent their money on something else?
- They want to foist the expenses of life on the "government"?
- They have made no provision for one of the big expenses in life, and want the adults to come rescue them?

Health care is expensive - I am an independent contractor, and my monthly premium now exceeds my mortgage payment. I suck it up, and don't do lots of other things I would do with that money.

Meanwhile, those people when inflicted with various health issues, are less willing to seek medical treatment, either making thier situation potentially worse, or in terms of illness, risk spreading it to others. This is a overly simplified issue that is a major issue in matters of life and death to Americans.

90% of the people you are talking about are just people who have screwed up their own lives, and somehow have gotten it in their head that something that is inherently expensive should be cheap. I'm tired of having my rates run up by people who have crummy life styles and get sick, whether from smoking (27% of the population), or being fat (50% of the population), or sedentary, or taking sexual risks, or being rotten drivers, or not fastening their seatbelts, or being drunks or druggies, or getting pregnant when they have known bad hereditary risks.

There needs to be a reasonable way that Americans can have access to affordable health care. The way the system operates now is flawed very deeply.

The "deep flaw" is a population most of whom take big risks with their health, and then think highly trained doctors, expensive medical equipment, and drugs which took decades to develop should all be given them free, or at least "affordably".

Now NHS, or Socialized medicine or whatever right wing vomit you want to dish out, has proven it isnt going to minimize your health care any under our modern system.

There's no debating someone like you who just waves away the widely known, well-documented facts.

 

[SW85]

What you need proof to prove to you that millions don't have coverage and they yes having no coverage actually means you can die from things you would not if Covered? If it was true that if you had no coverage, they would just do it anyway, why would anyone buy coverage?

I think you misunderstand the nature of insurance coverage.

The population of uninsured is not fixed -- that is, it's not necessarily the same 45 million people who go from one year to the next without insurance. It's a rotating population of people who are transitioning between jobs or even just between insurance plans. Going a few weeks or months without insurance is not a particular cause for alarm, since it's intrinsic to the nature of insurance that you're insuring against an unlikely event -- catastrophic illness or injury. Routine health problems can be dealt with by paying in installments, which most medical professionals are willing to do.

The big concern is the population of people who go consistently without health insurance, which I'd posit is (a) relatively small, and (b) largely voluntary. I can offer proof, if you like, that sizable proportions of the uninsured population opt out of insurance voluntarily -- small business owners, for instance, or young'uns like myself who are in great health and would rather save money than squander it on insurance he doesn't plan on using (and a sizable population of foreign-born non-citizens, who tend not to work in jobs that offer insurance and who aren't our problem, anyway). As I mentioned earlier, since you get health insurance against the unlikely probability of catastrophic illness or injury, it's a perfectly rational economic choice for people to forego it.

Now I'm not saying there are no people who are genuinely desperate. I am, however, saying the issue is probably severely overblown here, and that those who really are in bad straights can be taken care of without yet another massive government entitlement program.

 

[top gun]

The Kennedy example is a flawed example. Anyone who wishes to pay and can afford any procedure would certainly be able to get it with or without National Healthcare.

National Healthcare addresses major "pieces" of the healthcare model for everyone in a timely manor.

If you have no heathcare and are just brought in as an indigent does anyone believe that person would get better heathcare services than someone on a National Plan... of course not.

So if you're a person with means like Ted Kennedy you get whatever treatment is available immediately because you can afford it immediately.

People who have nothing now have something with a National Plan that covers one heck of a lot of healthcare services in a timely manor.

If you're financially well off your situation stays the same (excellent). Everyone else's situation improves.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

No, I didn't fail to deal with it - I offered some solutions in the NHS Horror story thread.

:

yes you did, and it was a horrible system, you had enough bad ideas to make sure both sides would hate it.