Oh noes! The dreaded “it’s” error.

D’oh!! Thanks for the catch, Daniel. Don’t know why that always gets me.

Sounds like the lawyers have run amok. Why couldn’t they just make it clear and simple?

Do the private insurance policies express this more clearly? I assume that they lay out the rules somewhere about where your coverage ends(?) or will they pay for you to stay in Intensive Care indefinitely after your heart attack at age 90?

Maybe you could you put up your current private health insurance legal mumbo jumbo for us to compare, Chris?

I remember when the left was shocked and appalled at the temerity of the government telling doctors they had to have specific conversations with patients, in that case alternatives to abortion.

I remember when a president was excoriated as a theocrat for talking religion. Of course,that president was a Republican (only in office by the good graces of the Supreme Court).

I remember when the media billed itself as the loyal opposition, patriotic in it’s “questioning authority”.

The stench of hypocrisy is overwhelming.

Chris, here’s a hint for its/it’s:

You don’t use an apostrophe in pronoun “his,” so don’t use one in the pronoun “its.” They both end in s.

You DO use an apostrophe in the contraction “he’s” (he is or he has), so use one in “it’s” (it is or it has).

I covered this section of HR 3200 here. If you keep reading section 1233 you will see that the Secretary of HHS will have broad authority to require reporting from physicians about how well they are utilizing these sessions. The secretary will set the standards for judging a physician’s performance. Since the purpose of putting this clause in HR 3200 is to decrease expenditures on end-of-life care it is reasonable to assume that one of the criteria that will grade a physician’s performance is how well he/she is getting patients to forgo medical interventions. The scenario created is that physicians are given a financial incentive to have these consultations at a minimum of every five years and then these physicians will be judged on how well they talk patients out of interventions. They can be sanctioned with whatever penalty the Secretary of HHS concocts if they do not meet standards. The looming health care scenario makes me glad I have retired from clinical practice.

Don’t happen to have it with me at the moment, Michael, but the information I get from my insurance company every year is a LOT clearer than this. And their paper weighs a whole lot less than 3-1/2 pounds.

I know all about its/it’s, GOTC. My mom was an English teacher and saw to that. Unfortunately, I write too fast sometimes and that’s one that always gets me.

Since the largest percentage of money spent on health care goes for the disabled, the chronically ill, and those with major illnesses in the last years of life, (which can just as easily be in the 30s, or 60s, or 90s). Brain tumors occur in young adults, are life threatening and costly. I lost a lot of friends when they were in their 60s, and I considered them “young.” The only way costs can be cut is to dump those who are most ill. That’s what they seem to be doing in the UK. When you have some panel reviewing physicians’ medical decisions, there goes advances in medicine.

Chris, true story:
Years ago - I won’t mention how many - I was the young operations manager of a pretty fair sized radio station. Came the day when, listening with one ear to a staffer’s complaints, with my other ear tuned to an on-air monitor, I heard one of our reporters promo an upcoming piece about “Euthanasia”. I immediately walked to the newsroom and demanded to know why we were wasting air time reporting on “Youth In Asia”. I can still hear the guffaws.

Chris, I’m an English teach and I have to pause to think about lie/lay!

But I’m not a keyboarding teacher…

Mr. Johnson: So your mother was an English teacher and you are a librarian. Glad to see that she passed on the joys of reading, writing and the life of the mind to you. Don’t worry about “its” and “it’s.” I sitll go nuts over “i before e, except after c. Oh yeah? Explain “achieve.” The “i” comes after a “c,” although admittedly with an “h” in between, but it STILL comes AFTER a “c.”

“We’re from the government and we’re here to help you.”

Yeah. Again. Except permanently this time.

Lie means to recline, lay means to place (as, one thing upon another.) I suppose the easiest way to keep them straight, is to try substituting (in your head) the word “recline” into your sentence and see if it conveys the meaning you want. If not try “place” or “set” and see if that’s the meaning you want.

Now if I could only get my subjects and verbs to always agree!! (…and get all the people in the world to stop using apostrophes for plurals.)

forgot at close of above post.

errr, that was supposed to be &lt/pedantry&gt

It is simply astounding to me that people on our side are even discussing the merits/demerits of Obamacare. We are on the precipice of forever changing this country and surrendering our personal freedom to the lunatic Left in Washington. Can we improve the existing health care system? Of course. But that doesn’t require taking a giant leap backward to government seizure of the system. For those of you who think that government control of health care is not what this is all about, you are either brain dead or living in a parallel universe. In fact, it isn’t about health care in the final analysis. It is about government control of every facet of our lives. Once the feds have control over your body, the rest is easy.

Universal health care.

Except for those we don’t want in our universe.

Umm, according to The “O”, if the insurance company drops you it’s bad, but if Uncle does it that’s fine. Insurance companies evil, the gov’t is benevolent big brother. Yeah, right.

Also, if you get sick late in the Fiscal Year you may be outta luck, as they constantly run out of money before Sept 30.

Every time this is discussed I think of the movie “Logan’s Run”.

Here in New Zealand we have a public health system, and people can choose private health insurance as well. For accidents we have the Accident Compensation Corporation. You don’t sue if you have an accident here, ACC pays for your medical and rehabilitation needs instead. Tax wise, we also have a good and services tax on every item bought by a consumer of 12.5%.

Here’s the url on tax costs to individuals:

http://www.ird.govt.nz/how-to/taxrates-codes/itaxsalaryandwage-incometaxrates.html

I don’t know how this compares to American taxes, but it funds our health services. I’ve had several operations in my life, four sons and my pregnancies were high risk, and emergency care when I’ve needed it. My doctors visits are subsidised and so are my prescriptions.

I know that if I get really ill I’ll get what I need to become healthy and I’ll never be presented by a hospital bill. Rich or poor, our public health system will save your life. It’s not perfect. When I needed my gall bladder removed I had to wait three months, but I didn’t mind because we couldn’t have afforded to pay for it or to have paid for insurance.

Why isn’t this better? What about Americans who can’t afford insurance? Or people with existing conditions who insurence companies won’t cover? Don’t insurance companies ration care? They exist to make a profit, so the less they pay out, the better their profit margin right?

I don’t get it, why are companies trustworthy, but democratically elected government not? Isn’t it easier to make elected politicians accountable than private citizen CEOs?

Suppose I’m an American in a lowly paid job, my employer won’t pay for my health insurance, I have an existing condition like diabetes which means I either don’t get covered for diabetes related issues, or the coverage is just out of my league. I purchase a minimal amount of coverage, the best I can afford. Then I get sick and I need an expensive operation and expensive medicine to save my life. What would happen?

Oh, yes, let’s all sit around and “tell our stories.”

You do know that this is how the LGBT agenda has been advanced at every stage; not by thoughtful study and theologizing, but “telling our stories.”

Meurknz, I am not pooh-poohing your direct experience, but your “what if” scenario at the end is a bit suspect.

As for poiticians being accountable, that is a real stretch. I have a US Congressional Representative who has been in office for far too long, does not vote how I would prefer, etc., etc.. He is in a gerrymandered district which includes enough pockets of a particular demographic which will ensure he will be re-elected handily as long as he does not offend that particular constituency. In short, I am in the minority and accountability for responsible spending is out of the question.

Dear Muerknz: I will be glad to tell you exactly what would happen. And after I do so, you may expect a long list of replies saying that I do not know what I am talking about. But, I do know. Here is what would happen–your doctor would know that you had absolutely NO way of ever paying for this expensive operation. Consequently, he would not even tell you about the possibility of this treatment existing. He would instead prescribe a less expensive alternative treatment. (The most recent statistic I saw said that about 22,000 Americans die each year because there was no way to pay for available treatment.) The problem for America is that too many people are willing to take too many chances with their health care. It is not considered a priority item by many people. There is no way that we would EVER agree to a national sales tax of ANY PERCENT to guarantee everybody adequate health care.

Why is my “what if” senario suspect? I’m mean it’s hardly a radical set of circumstances. My point is that my experience of public health has been really good. It’s not perfect, and there are always horror stories, but why is private insurance so fantastic? I doubt it is horror story free. What happens to people in America who aren’t insured and aren’t covered by medicare?

A business is there purely to give a return on investment, to maximise profit within existing regulations. At least your Congressional Representative is answerable to their constituency, and you are able to lobby for a change in representation, even though it’s an unhill battle. That’s not possible at all with a CEO.

At most you can choose to change where you spend your dollar, but if companies work together to price fix or your dollar spend isn’t big, for example, then you can be stuck with a crappy situation with no recourse. I mean if you’re wealthy, then hey, no problem, but not everyone is wealthy.

I just genuinely do not understand the American conservative attitude to public health. I just really don’t. It seem cruel to have people unable to afford quality health care or to be bankrupted by illness or injury.

My peeves are lend versus loan, and flaunt versus flout, and one that I don’t remember because my wife stopped doing it after I pointed out how it bugged me.

Muerknz, I hardly know where to begin. For starters, while it’s hard to change companies it’s possible; single payer for us has meant Medicare, and if you are over 65 you can supplement Medicare to an extent but you cannot get away from it; there are legal restrictions on providing care to anyone over 65 outside that system, with criminal penalties.

Second, 12.5 VAT is one thing, but anyone who thinks that the US Congress would pass a VAT in lieu of rather than in addition to the graduated income tax should get a fitness for duty examination.

Third, and last for today, meaning no disrespect to Kiwi medicine and pharmaceuticals, have there been any big advances made there lately? The US is on of the biggest drivers in medical innovation because the development costs can be recouped. Obamacare as constituted would probably bring that to a screeching halt.

Maybe medicine is as good as it ever needs to be. Maybe not. But with a BILLION DOLLARS to develop, test and certify ONE new drug, if pharma gets clamped down on the way this bill looks like it will clamp down on pharma, medicine is about as good as its ever GOING to be. Because nobody will ever recoup the costs of improving it.

“There is no way that we would EVER agree to a national sales tax of ANY PERCENT to guarantee everybody adequate health care.”

But why not? Doesn’t everyone deserve quality health care? Isn’t it wrong to allow people to die from treatable causes when this problem could be solved by everyone just giving a little bit more. I mean Americans pay a huge amount of tax money for the armed forces, why not some for health? Our health system is paid for out of the general tax take, the 12.5% GST is just part of that. Australia has GST too.

And isn’t a healthier workforce going to mean more taxpayers and more productive citizens? Wouldn’t a good mental health service help stop people who may become addicts or who offend and end up in the expensive justice system?

muerknz, the USA isn’t New Zealand, either in size or in culture, despite the common language. We have lots of experience here with gross inefficiency, waste, and fraud in large government entitlement programs. I am happy to know what works in NZ. American conservatives and, according to the polls, a growing majority of swing voters, think there’s a better way to do this. It’s not cruel or uncaring, it’s wanting it done better.

Chris, a House committee has passed and attached to the bill an amendment requiring every “health exchange” to offer at least one alternative which pays for elective abortion, and the “public option” will be required to include it.

In both cases, end-of-life counseling and abortion, it’s difficult to say whether Obama is directly lying or whether he simply has no idea what’s in this proposal and just says what he wants to.

We do quite a lot of research and development here in New Zealand, for example: CoDaTherapeutics.

This is a company based on work by Professor Colin Green (University of Auckland, NZ) and Professor David Becker (University College London).

http://www.codatherapeutics.com/index.html

Here;s a new drug from them:

http://www.codatherapeutics.com/news-coda-Receives-Orphan-drug-Designation.html

CoDa is a partner of the new Institute for Inovation for Biotechnology, along with other biotech firms.

http://www.biotech.co.nz/

You’re talking about the country that invented the Hamilton jet boat, bungy jumping, the commercial electric fence, pavlova, the disposable syringe, the tranquilliser gun and the zorb. A Kiwi split the atom (Rutherford) and Maurice Wilkins, a Kiwi, discovered the molecular structure of DNA along with Watson and Crick. And many New Zealanders are sure that Richard Pearse flew before the Wright Brothers.

Heck, in WWII our soldiers used to nick broken American stuff, fix it up and use it. Same in the South Pole

muerknz -

I believe you have commented before on your satisfaction with the health service in New Zealand. Likewise, I’ve commented on my mother’s very positive experience with the Scottish National Health Services. Michael D (and any number of other Canadians)have praised their health care systems. The stats are clear: Americans pay more for life spans that average less than those in other developed countries (at best, the stats have the Americans only slightly behind, leaving out childhood mortality, which is high in the U.S.). However, you have to understand that Americans on the left and the right are fond of anecdotes. One bad case somehow “proves” something.

All that said, Katherine makes good points. New Zealand has less than 4 and a quarter million people. By comparison, the Fort Worth/Dallas metroplex has something over 6 million. New Zealand is mainly Anglo and Maori (right?). I can’t tell you how many cultures I encounter in a day. And let me tell you, anyone can get health care in this area. As I’ve commented before, we have good public health systems in Fort Worth (Tarrant County) and Dallas County. My indigent clients generally get better services than me with my private insurance.

Most important, the U.S. has a different tradition: we view governmental control as inherently inefficient and, evil. Our watchword is “the government that governs least, governs best”. In fact, it’s medicare/medicaid that, arguably, put small rural hospitals out of business and, partially, created the current situation. There are many horror stories about medicare and medicaid, as there are about the Veterans Administration health services. There are a lot of positive stories as well.

And then there is avarice, which is the preferred Deadly Sin of the political right (Lust being preferred on the left). Medicine has moved from being a service and a fundamental right to a business. That has worked with the food supply, though with a lot of governmental intervention, so I guess it could with health care. But is that the best way. And would it be such a horrible thing?

A lot of us believe (see my own earlier comment and others in this thread) that the current American president is using this “crisis” to implement his own social vision: abortion on demand and euthanasia, plus a general control of society by the national government. He couches it in moralistic terms, but a lot of us aren’t buying it. He certainly cares about the poor, but his methods are proven failures in large, complex societies.

I’ve laid out my own ideas before, but here they are again:

- stop insuring every ache and pain; return to relatively high deductibles and stop-loss, like it used to be. The current insurance practices are the problem, not the solution. One of the lies being told on the right is about government bureaucrats controlling health care. As noted about, are insurance company bureaucrats any better?
- fund health care through medical savings accounts. That will work for the vast majority of us who currently have insurance.
- put together some sort of program for the working poor - something like food stamps. It’s problematic to require small, marginal companies to take on health care costs.
- fund a robust public system to serve as a safety net. In a decent community, everyone gets basic health care.
- stop the inflation of what constitutes “basic health care”. Remember the Clinton plan, where everyone would have unlimited psychotherapy?

There’s probably more, but it’s time to go to work.

If we go to “universal” health care it will forever make abortion legal and frequent. You can forget about Alzheimer research since that money will be spent on counseling the elderly about death options. This package is being sold in the name of “compassion”. Rest assured, it is more about big government and the bottom line.

Actually the text of HR3200 is available all over the internet (all skaty-eight bazillion pages of it), but try this for a start.

My 2 cents:

Socialized medicine here in Costa Rica works just great, but they don’t have an army to support (politically neutral, like Switzerland). Age, experience, and family are highly valued, and tax dollars support the public health system. Life expectancy is one of the highest in the world, due to healthy lifestyles. Abortion is illegal and children are cherished in this Roman Catholic country, and the elderly are well cared for.

As legal residents (since this past spring), we pay about $50 a month for medical insurance and care for both of us and - so far - our experiences of the system have been wonderful. No deductibles, co-pays, or other hidden charges for routine care, prescriptions, lab tests, or dental (excluding stuff like root canals). Elective care is also available at very, very low cost.

Lack of affordable healthcare/insurance in the USA was just one of our many reasons for choosing to move here. Without employment but too young for Medicare, we were going flat broke. We miss our friends in Texas, but we’re really happy (and healthier) here.

Public medicine from another viewpoint.

P.S. Pet grammar peeves: lie/lay, sit/set, affect/effect, peek/peak, and ’s for plurals.

My pet peeves are: sight, site, cite,
and too, to, two.

Glad to hear you made the move you had been thinking about, Connie!

Connie, I can easily see that this would work in a place like Costa Rica. The operative concepts, to my mind, are a small country, and “life expectancy is one of the highest in the world, due to healthy lifestyles.”

I have no objection to the government getting into the health care business. If Washington wants to compete with but not replace private insurers in order to provide low-cost insurance to those who can’t afford it, that’s fine. And if I can get a better deal from the government than I can from my current insurance company, that’s even better.

But I just want to know two things. What does the plan cover and not cover? And how much will it cost me? You don’t need 3-1/2 pounds of paper to tell me that. The fact that H. R. 3200 weighs that much suggests that the Democrats want to do far more than merely provide affordable health insurance to those who don’t currently have it.

So, no, I don’t trust the government. That’s kind of an American trait and always has been. Medicare’s pretty much broke, by the way.

Christopher, that’s exactly the point. If our goal is to provide subsidized insurance for those who can’t afford it or can’t qualify, we could do that for way less money and in a way that doesn’t change how every American provides or gets health care. Step by step and one change at a time would be the best way to approach this, to avoid disasters and unintended consequences.

Any bill that runs to 1000+ pages and is being “fast tracked” - i.e. let’s not debate it; it’s too important to delay - is sure to have hidden agenda items buried within it. There has been enough published on the web by people who have taken the time to read it (even if not fully) to convince me that this legislation is an attempt by the Obama administration to take over the health insurance/provider sector of the economy, just as he has used the bail-outs to take over the banking system and the auto industry.

This does not bode well for the country. It is just a rank grab for power by a man who is no friend to capitalism or freedom. Obama is a closet Marxist and the longer he stays in office, the more it shows.

FWIW I am a retired federal employee getting about $26,000 per year (pre-taxes - state, federal, city). My healthcare is an HMO costing me about $172 per month which is one third of the total cost(9% of take home). When the Bush tax cuts expire I’ll loose about $50 per month. Copays are $10, except name brand RX are $20 or $35 depending if they are on the RX list.

Working Postal employees pay about 2/3 of other employees premiums, retirees pay what I pay.

The guides are at the following location, please remember we will end up with whatever congress does to everyone else:

http://www.opm.gov/insure/health/planinfo/guides/index.asp

I have no clue what congress gets, my google search couldn’t find it.

My pet peeve is when to use “I” or “me.” Does anyone else notice that “me” is almost never used any more? People will twist their sentences so it doesn’t have to be used. Also the words “fewer” versus “less.”

What’s the tally on how many Congress people will sign up for the HRP?

Fewer/less is a big one for me. Also insure/ensure.

Isn’t it easier to make elected politicians accountable than private citizen CEOs?

Hah - now that is funny. I can alwys go buy from someone else. I can only vote for who happens to be on the ballot and then, my vote is one of millions that has no impact for an entrenched politician (who, by the way, will serve longer than most CEOs that end up replaced at the first sign of any financial hiccup).

I particularly dislike the bit about being forced to sign up for a government approved plan. A.) I don’t like the government forcing me to do anything I think should be a personal decision. B.) I much prefer paying small fees out of pocket and having a high deductible. C.) I don’t want to pay for abortions. D.) I don’t like the way government stifles free speech about nutritional and other alternatives, and attempts to punish you if you go for therapies outside the box. E.) Laying any more costs on the backs of hospitals and doctors means that more rural hospitals will have to close their doors, leaving large areas without ER services, and lots of doctors will take early retirement.

Some of my grammatical pet peeves (which I’d much rather think about than the health insurance mess): it’s/its, affect/effect, emigrate/immigrate, and lie/lay, for which there is an amusing limerick:

Lie and lay are two little verbs
That confuse the smartest of men.
If you like, you may say
I lay yesterday;
If you do it today, you’re a hen.

Glad to know there are others out there who notice these things!

New Zealand is really, really small, but Canada isn’t, nor is the United Kingdom, or the European and Scandanavian countries.

I guess what I’m saying is that okay, what is being pushed now might not be right, but surely health reform in America is important so that all people, regardless of income, can have quality health care?

Abortion and euthanasia are evil, but letting people die or suffer from treatable diseases in a wealthy country is too.

But muerknz, you’re buying (and at a distance) the line that it’s this “reform” or nothing. That’s a false choice, and as many have said here, people don’t die in the streets here anyhow. We’ve got problems, but they are being overstated for effect.

F W Ken: NZ is quite multi-cultural, especially in Auckland, our biggest city. Because of our small population we have a lot of immigration and we take a lot of refugees as well. There is a very large Polynesian population and a lot of people from all over Asia. Here in Greymouth, a town of around 10,000 I have Tamil, Singaporean, Scottish, Indonesian, Sri Lankan, African, South African, Argentinian, German, Australian etc. friends. My doctor is from South Africa, with Indian heritage, another is from Mississippi.

When I was in hospital I had Indian, Vietnamese and African Muslim midwifes.

We are very much a melting pot.

No, no, I’m not saying it’s this specific reform or nothing. I’m saying I think there needs to be reform and what is presented now doesn’t seem right.

I have absolutely no confidence in a government run health care system. The US had a surplus in Social Security funds in the 60s. Instead of keeping that money separate, as it was supposed to, Democratic Congresses since the 60s have spent money like drunken sailors.

“Savings” that Obama proposes in health care include 40% “savings” from Medicare. What that means is that reimbursements to doctors and hospitals will be reduced even more than they are now. They already receive lower reimbursements from Medicare than they do from private insurers. A recent survey published in the Journal of Physicians and Surgeons shows that many doctors already treat Medicare patients differently - longer times to get appointments and they offer fewer treatment alternatives. Increasing numbers of doctors do not accept Medicare patients. Chilling, especially since I’m nearing Medicare age; I haven’t, fortunately, needed much health care, except for checkups, my entire life. I don’t want services options cut off by the government because I’m getting older. That is what is scaring older people in this county.

There is so much waste in the whole system; cutting the waste would be a good place to start instead of developing more and more government agencies to stand between me and my health care.

I think we do need some reforms, but I believe it should be carefully though out, in smaller steps, and bipartisan.

We need insurance that isn’t tied to employment, a range of choices in plans, an end people not being eligible for insurance because of pre-existing conditions, and real competition between insurance companies. Some sort of support for people without insurance is appropriate, but not a government single-payer plan.

All you have to do in the US is look at the VA Hospital system and the Post Office to see what a good job the government does running anything.

This fight isn’t about people who don’t have insurance.

Muerknz, based on your last, we agree.

And while Kiwi inventiveness is wonderful, I think you overlooked or didn’t believe what I said about it costing a billion dollars to bring a new drug to market here.

A BILLION. With the drug companies being squeezed the way the prominent Democrats say they will be, how would they ever make that back?

Precisely, muerknz! If you talked to a lot of average Americans of the moderate to conservative political stripe, I suspect that a majority would agree that there are flaws in how we pay for health care in the US, and that both the financing and quality of health care should and ought to be improved. That said, you hit the nail on the head: “what is presented now doesn’t seem right.”

I’m a physician. I work in the US health care system. Most MDs I work with could give our congresscritters and the Administration an earful of suggestions on how to improve delivery of health care. I don’t get the impression, however, that Obama et al. really want to take the time to analyze what works (and there’s a lot in the US that DOES work), what needs straightforward, relatively low-cost tweaks to improve the system (making private insurance competitive across state borders, for example, or tax subsidies for covering working poor families, or greater use of health savings accounts), and what needs serious overhaul (decreasing the exorbitant cost of drugs and medical equipment, while not stifling innovation, or shoring up a Medicare system that’s bound for bankruptcy even without the proposed massive expansion of government-paid care).

I strongly feel that Obama & Co. want to use this moment as a means of advancing their decades-long desire for the creation of a social welfare state that is very far from the traditional US free market approach. They are true believers in greater statism and fundamentally hate the conservative notion that government should be limited in its powers. They truly believe that Big Government is good government, and never met an entitlement program that they didn’t like.

As I’ve said before, I know that the US can do a better job paying for and providing health care (although we do a pretty damn good job in many areas). But contrary to the scare stories out there, it’s not in danger of imploding today, or tomorrow, or next year. And a system that serves 300 million very medically diverse people shouldn’t be fixed in a slapdash, precipitous manner.

Two questions everyone should ask their representatives:

1) Have you read (marked, learned, and inwardly digested) H.R. 3200? That’s what we pay you for - to understand and represent our interests.

2) Will you introduce or support an amendment that requires all elected Federal Officials (including Congress and the Pres and VP) to drink from the same cistern as the rest of us. That is, no exemption from the requirements and no special “Congress/Executive” health plan.

If they understand and don’t exempt themselves, then we might trust them a *little*. (There is still room for errors due to incompetence, but less chance that we suffer from bad ideology.)

I think the root of the mistrust and anger is that our elected officials treat themselves as a entitled aristocracy and rarely suffer the burdens they lay on the rest of us.

A few quick notes

10 “Doesn’t everyone deserve quality health care?” I’ll be the bad guy and answer, “No, not at the expense of others, especially since ‘quality health care’ is an extremely elastic term.”

2) “The stats are clear: Americans pay more for life spans that average less than those in other developed countries (at best, the stats have the Americans only slightly behind, leaving out childhood mortality, which is high in the U.S.).”

This argument is flawed in two vital respects. Firstly, judging the quality of health care by national life expectancy is comparing apples and kiwi fruit. The USA has a very high murder rate and a fairly high accident mortality rate, mostly because we drive more than most nations. Take deaths by murder and accident out of the equation and we have the longest life expectancy in the world. A far better indication of he quality of actual health care in any given country is the survival rate of persons actually suffering from a given condition.
According to the survey of cancer survival rates in Europe and the United States, published recently in Lancet Oncology (Arduino Verdecchia et al., “Recent cancer survival in Europe : a 2000–02 period analysis of EUROCARE-4 data,” Lancet Oncology, 2007, No. 8, pages 784–796):

1. American women have a 63% chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56% for European women and 53% for British women.

2. American men have a five-year survival rate of 66% compared to only 47 percent for European men and 45% for British men.

3. PLEASE NOTE WELL: These figures reflect the care available to ALL Americans, not just those with private health coverage.

4. Great Britain, known for its 50-year-old government-run, universal health care system -the National Health Service - (portrayed extremely favorably in Michael Moore’s movie “Sicko”) fares even worse than the European averages, and far below U.S. averages (see chart above).

5. Despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the United States are most likely to be screened regularly, and once diagnosed, have the fastest access to treatment.

The study concludes that “International comparisons establish that the most important factors in cancer survival are early diagnosis, time to treatment and access to the most effective drugs. Some uninsured cancer patients in the United States encounter problems with timely treatment and access, but a far larger proportion of cancer patients in Europe face these troubles. No country on the globe does as good a job overall as the United States.”

Secondly, infant mortality rates are equally unreliable because different countries have different methods of determining them and wildly varying degrees of accuracy and thoroughness in their reporting. Furthermore, there are differing standards and expectations regarding preemies. In the US many children who are born so early that they would be counted as stillbirths or miscarriages in other countries are considered live births and extraordinary measures are taken to give them a chance to live. Should these measures fail, they are are counted as infant mortalities.

The “crisis” in American health care is as phony as the AGW crisis and lefty politicians are using it in the same way.

Interesting about Auckland culture, muerknz. What I said was from a quick google search on your country, and made in the wake of a trip to Fryes, and electronics superstore that’s pretty much a United Nations clone.

The salient point remains that my immediate area (Dallas/Fort Worth) has half again as many people as your country. And they can all get basic health care. They don’t all have insurance, but, as noted, that’s not the same thing.

I will say it’s nice to hear some of the positive proposals put forth. The left gets away, too easily, with the lie that those against Obamacare are against health care reform in general. Is it now clear that isn’t true? Christians, particularly, should be concerned that health care is a fundamental duty of a decent society. What we disagree about is the best means of doing that duty.

There is no one perfect health care system, and God knows there is plenty of inefficiency and waste - the mess of the Irish system, even with the grand plans to reorganise it that have just ended up even worse are evidence for that - but from my (admittedly skimpy) view of what’s being proposed, it looks like you Americans have a good chance of ending up with the worst of both worlds - an over-bureaucratic system that still won’t cover the needy and a private system that will cherry-pick those least likely to need the coverage they’re paying for.

For the first time ever, I’ve had to go to a hospital for a visit - ended up in A&E for an exam to make sure my sudden abdominal pains weren’t appendicitis. They weren’t, you’ll all be glad to know

Now, I was sitting there for six hours - so if I were a private patient, would I have been seen quicker? Probably, yes. On the other hand, had I been screaming in pain and collapsed on the floor, I’d probably have been seen quicker as well

However, apart from the hanging around waiting, it didn’t cost me a penny because I’d been recommended by my doctor (even though I was willing to pay).

Contrast that with my brother’s friend, who visited the private clinic on his health insurance with his kid (the child had hurt his foot). He was seen and had all the tests and treated within the hour (and luckily it wasn’t serious either) but it cost two or three hundred euro which he had to pay out of pocket (will be reimbursed by medical plan).

There’s a lot of people can’t afford a couple of hundred straight out of their pocket, so put off visiting the doctor and end up worse. What I want to know is why this proposed health care plan means the end of private insurance? Won’t the companies still be in business? Won’t you be able - if you can afford it - still to buy private health insurance?

A national health system is an emergency net, and there will always be a certain amount of red tape, but it need not necessarily be a bad thing.

Though as I said, from the accounts I’m reading, the President’s proposed one is a dog’s dinner.

Never mind the insurance companies; when it comes to dealing with hospital consultants, you’ll see the real bogging-down in any attempts to change how things are done.

Fuinseoig, I am delighted to hear you did not have appendicitis. I can tell you that Americans, whether or not insured, can sit for hours in hospital emergency rooms; most of us could tell such stories. They do triage, and take seriously ill or injured people before less drastic cases. So we sit.

An alternative here is the proliferation of “urgent care” clinics. I landed in one myself earlier this week after a night of coughing, fever and chills. $149 for the visit including flu test and chest X-ray, and another $149 for a heavy-duty antibiotic for the pneumonia, which, like your brother’s bill, will be sent to my insurance company for partial reimbursement. I’d have waited a lot longer in an emergency room, but that’s where people who don’t have the $149 go, because the emergency room is required to treat them anyhow.

Fuinseoig - private companies can’t compete with a government program that will not be competitive. The government doesn’t have to make a profit to stay in business and it can pass laws to make it harder for private companies to stay in business. It also sounds like to me, after reading the bill, that after a couple of years, people buying insurance would be forced into the government plan.

I will also point out that no members of Congress have expressed an interest in participating in the plan they want to pass. They have superb health coverage and definitely won’t want to give that up.

St. Louisan, yes, but we have a national health system here and private insurance companies: VHI, Quinn Healthcare (which took over BUPA’s Irish business), and Hibernian Aviva.

We did have BUPA, which is a British company that pulled out of the Irish market due to (you will love this) government interference back in 2006:

“The private health insurance company, BUPA, is to withdraw from the Irish market, it has announced.

The company has 475,000 members and employs 300 people, mainly in Fermoy in Cork

This follows last month’s decision by the High Court to uphold the legality of a scheme that would force BUPA to pay a multi-million euro subsidy to competitor, VHI.

Risk equalisation is a scheme that provides for insurance companies with fewer elderly subscribers to compensate other companies who have higher numbers of elderly, and therefore more costly, subscribers.

BUPA had always insisted that such a scheme would threaten its future viability in Ireland and could result in it having to pull out of the market here. Despite this, the High Court last month rejected the insurer’s case and upheld the controversial scheme.

BUPA immediately initiated a meeting with Health Minister, Mary Harney, to discuss the implications of the decision. However the company has now confirmed that from today (December 14), ‘it has no option but to commence its withdrawal from the market’.

The company will no longer accept new members and current members will not be renewed. Meanwhile its 300 staff have been given ‘at risk’ notice.

BUPA said that in recent days, it had made ‘extensive efforts to find an arrangement which would enable it to stay in the market’. However this decision had been ‘forced on it’, due to the scale of the payments required under risk equalisation.

Under the scheme, the company would be required to pay €161 million to VHI over the next three years. During this time, its profit would be estimated to be around €64 million. When making its ruling last month, the High Court acknowledged that when applied, risk equalisation would require BUPA to operate at a loss.”

So yes, this is probably one nightmare scenario if the American plan goes ahead. But it doesn’t necessarily have to be.

Once again, when our Minister for Health decided to tackle the waste, bureaucracy and inefficiency in the name of cost reduction, she came a cropper due to the hospital consultants digging their heels in and refusing any kind of reduction in payments.

Now, a national health service can be a money sink and it’s true that demand climbs to outstrip service no matter how many services are provided, but on the other hand, some kind of reasonable system is not going to be the end of the world, and America is a big enough market that the health insurance companies can still make a living.

However, in the current economic plight, introducing a badly-thought out and rushed leviathan of a plan, with nobody exactly sure what is covered and what isn’t, what is up to individuals and what will be imposed on them, and vague, amorphous powers invested in a government minister, doesn’t sound like what you need.

Just for another aspect of the health care mess, see this piece in the Washington Post saying that the Democratic plan to require all Americans to buy approved health insurance or be taxed/fined is probably unconstitutional. Not that it will stop them …

Katherine, that’s the kind of thing that makes me roll my eyes and stamp my feet.

If people are in minimum-wage jobs and it’s a toss-up between paying your rent and buying groceries, or paying health insurance, which do you think is going to go to the wall? Even moderately well-off (and that’s all relative) people will juggle what are priorities: if the car breaks down or the boiler explodes or something of that nature happens, you’ll probably hold off on starting that new plan until the money is less tight.

So how can making it a punishable-by-fines offence help? Are we going to see the re-introduction of debtors’ prisons, for the people who can’t pay their health insurance or the fines for not paying their health insurance?

That’s the point of having a national health scheme: to catch those who would fall through the cracks.

“However, apart from the hanging around waiting, it didn’t cost me a penny because I’d been recommended by my doctor (even though I was willing to pay).”

Really? You don’t pay taxes to support this system? Then where does the money come from to pay for it? Or does everyone just work for free?

Fuinseoig,that, of course is the Catch-22, isn’t it?: it’s supposed to be a safety-net for those who would “fall between the cracks,” but it ends up punishing those who, in the end, can’t afford it anyway. It’s like the so-called “fair” progressive tax system that Democrats have foisted upon us, that they scream about any time anyone talks about a serious tax cut: the people who would truly benefit from such a tax-cut, like my good friend, who owes $2000 in federal taxes despite being on retirement income, just have to keep on paying and paying, regardless of what these damned politicians say. They don’t have a clue about the real effects of the laws that they pass on the people they are supposed to represent. They just spout a lot of lofty rhetoric so that they can get re-elected and continue to enjoy their perks. To hell with the lot of them

Now we’re getting there, Fuinseoig! What the Democrats are proposing is NOT a safety net to provide for under-insured or lower-income people. We have Medicaid for that, and this is not an expansion of Medicaid, nor a public hospital and clinic system for those unable to pay. With or without the “public option,” forcing everybody to buy approved health insurance or pay the (hefty) fine is the heart of this proposal.

Someone needs to come up with a better health reform, one that creates a safety net for people, for example the working poor who don’t qualify for medicare but can’t afford decent insurance. Or for people who get sick and lose their job and the health insurance that went with it.

The purpose of punishable by fines is to rope in healthy single twenty-somethings who are willing to bet they won’t have a wreck.

[...] ALL PRAISE AND GLORY UNTO DEAR LEADER! “Yesterday, the religious left had its online health care cheerleading session with Barack [...]

Since one of your first complaints shows that you have poor understanding of what is in the bill, I didn’t need to go any further.

This is what you wrote:

“Nothing all that terribly wrong so far. But if I indicate to my physician that I do not want the plug to be pulled should it come to that since my beliefs consider such an act to be suicide and that there is therefore no circumstance under which I will change my mind, why do I need to go through this charade again in five years?”

The part of the legislation this referenced was in regard to paying for the counseling, not requiring one have it every 5 years. The bill would pay for the counseling provided no advanced planning counseling has been done in the last 5 years.

And, actually updating such advance plans every so often is a good idea. Young people should also make their wishes known, because it is something they don’t think about and don’t discuss usually with anyone. Your thoughts of what you would like done for you can change. I can tell you from experience that the person you are when in your 20s is not the person you will be in your 40s and so on. And, what this bill wanted was for people to have advance planning paid for, no matter if they wanted every possible procedure done or if they wanted to be taken off life support or not given extraordinary life-saving measures. It is up to each individual to define extraordinary. Clinicians can help tell the individual what the body will be going through, it is up to you to decide how your soul will deal with it.