Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry

Start here! Share your feelings
#41

Really? And you say I have a superiority compex?

I didn’t bring up my background to brag. I brought it up to counter your baseless insults. Your only credential seems to be the non-existent self-congratulatory “university of common sense”.

Bringing in your baseless bias any time the European healthcare system is mentioned on the forum is what anyone unbiased would call “thriving on confrontation and conflict”. Your close-minded conservative views don’t belong here, especialliy if you don’t have the capacity to have an intelligent debate without resorting to belittling and baseless insults. And judging by the private messages I’ve been getting, you’ve gotten into it with plenty of people over your ignorance.

#42

Sounds like words of an “elitist” to me…

Dee - A good saying I found a while back: “Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” [/quote]

Facts and credentials speak for themselves. I’m not too worried about opinions on my intelligence by anyone without any creditials to judge (reminds me of uneducated people judging global climate change as if they have the capacity to understand it without a scientific background). You know what they say about opinions…

#43

Okay. You are digging your hole deeper, missy. So, what’s your I.Q?

#44

Woaw, people, what a thread!

To be of any help, I only could say that the only way to make such statements about USA or Europe, is living in both places.

An ocean between us is enough to get flawed impressions about us.

Europe is a continent, USA is a country as big as a small continent.

Talking about USA, lacking knowledge and experience, drive us to be very mistaken. I do know that living in Boston is VERY diferent to living in Mobile, Alabama.

Living in Spain is a lot diferent to living in Russia.

There are true liberal (not what you call liberals, meaning democrat party supporters or something like that) countries like Switzerland (they are a Confederacy) and almost socialist (not dictatorial communist like URSS) countries like Sweden.

There are rich countries like Denmark, where unemployment rates are really low and there are poor countries like Albania or Moldavia, where survival is a hazardous experience.

The keyword is FREEDOM. Freedom to choose, to have guns at home, to build up a company without ridiculous restrictions and being under the thumb of the goverment, to vote, etc We are neither China nor North Korea. We should stay away from them.

The way to make us free, is the eternal discussion. The real deal.

I´ll dare to make a statement; the more ancient is a country, the less future it has. Take a look to the “cradles of civilization” like Persia, Egypt, Iraq, Greece, etc and after that, take a look to Australia or USA.Iraq, Greece, etc and after that, take a look to Australia or USA.

#45

Finally, careful and thoughtful words that are not discussion stoppers. You are most polite and reasonable and it is appreciated.

These words are at the core of what flipped this thread. Governing by good intentions without measuring or at least being truthful about the signs of bad or mediocre outcome that such “good” intentions cause, is an assault on individual freedoms. No one wants to be enslaved by a government that involves itself into everything from what kind of light bulbs to use to choosing what electrologist will do treatments on one’s face for “free”, as determined by others who have the power to choose for them, paid for by other taxpayers who have no control over the quality and outcome of the electrolysis care they are subsidizing.

#46

Unfortunately, the issue of healthcare is not black and white. People in the US don’t pay for most of it out of pocket or have much control over it. Instead of the gov’t, the insurance companies dictate how much things cost, how much is covered, where exactly one can get treatments, etc. It’s not the people as conservatives here seem to always imply. They speak in abstract terms and don’t realize that competition in the heathcare system specifically (as opposed to other things) works against people because insurance companies are the ones in control and their interests lie with their bottom line, NOT with the people. They make money by trying to pay for as little as possible, not the other way around.

A gov’t healthcare system is not perfect, but at least its goal is to serve people’s interests, not insurance companies’. And existence of a government healthcare system doesn’t prevent or forbid private practice. It simply provides an extra option for those who can’t afford it on their own (just like insurance does now) as the person from the UK demonstrated in this thread. They can use NHS OR they can pay out of pocket.

And just because something is managed by the gov’t doesn’t mean it can’t be set up in a way that prevents bad practitioners from being in business. Then again, the current system supposedly controlled by people doesn’t prevent bad electrologists or bad laser clinics from being around either. Just look at the feedback on this forum.

Once American ultra conservatives can come up with a good in-between solution that actually looks out for and benefits individuals and not insurance companies, there’ll be something to talk about. For now, a gov’t option is a better solution because it’s better than the system which has insurance companies in control denying claims and not paying for things in order to show a profit to shareholders every quarter.

And ultra conservative Americans who’ve never been anywhere else don’t realize that we’re paying 5-10 times more for drugs than anyone else in the world because corporations selling drugs in the US convinced politicians to establish rules that protect their products from competition.

p.s. You are correct, Spaniard. Unfortunately, many Americans haven’t even been to another side of the US much less to Europe or anywhere else in the world, but they get fed a bunch of propoganda about how people elsewhere supposedly feel, think and live, and consider that enough “education” to judge everything.

#47

Government doesn’t need to make a profit. Insurance companies do. That’s my point and it’s not that hard to understand. Competition works well, EXCEPT when it comes to healthcare the way we have it currently set up because currently insurance companies are competing to NOT pay for treatments so they can show the most profit every quarter. They’re not competing to provide you with the best treatments. You can’t compare to it Wal-Mart because of this. If people paid for everything out of pocket like they do at Wal-Mart, it would be different. Instead, we have insurance companies controlling things because healthcare is something that’s too expensive and impractical to be paid by individuals similar to many other services that the government currently provides for that reason.

Your point seems to be that competition makes healthcare better and cheaper. And my point is that competition is great, but not when it comes to healthcare. It obviously doesn’t do either well looking at the US since we still have bad doctors and the most expensive care in the world (by comparison, we have much cheaper electronics and other items compared to Europe because in that realm of direct purchase by individuals, competition is great). So the current system doesn’t work the way you seem to suggest it does. That’s why people are looking for alternatives.

I never suggested that the government system would be necessarily more efficient. That’s a separate issue, though it’s not impossible to make it efficient. There could be several entities in charge creating competition for rewards, employee pay increases etc as one example. The discussion here was about the fact that the current system doesn’t produce the kind of competition you suggest and that it actually is set up to screw individuas over instead. Either way, the right-wing articles on Medicare denials don’t give you the whole story like reasons for denials and factual differentials (like the one that points out that private insurances drop you altogether when you get sick, so they won’t have to deny or pay for you later). http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/6/05110/6076

#48

She doesn’t know what she is talking about as usual. Robotical ultra liberal talking points is all she has, backed up by ultra liberal nutballs like Paul Krugman and the Daily Kos. True, governments don’t need to make a profit [size:14pt]AND they don’t need to be accountable either for all the waste, fraud and corruption they bring upon us.[/size] Government run Medicare / Medicaid fraud is so HUGE - 60 BILLION to 90 BILLION per year and you are indignant about private insurance companies profits? The private insurance companies make much less profit than the government run socialist programs which loose, steal and corrupt taxpayers hard earned dollars. Even if you throw in the far left leaning Daily Koss’s numbers, it’s still out paces a private sector company profits. Is it any wonder we don’t want to hand over any more of our earned money to the all powerful, all knowing what is good for us, federal government?! If this were a private business, they would have been booted out on their heads a long ago.

The average healthcare industry profits are 4%. Check it out on Google Finance. I don’t think it is far left or right leaning source. Check out Pepsico, Google and Microsofts profits while you are there.

As far as denying claims, even if someone is denied the first time because of inadequate paperwork or whatever, that doesn’t mean if a request is submitted a second or third time, with proper information and such, that they will be denied again. Government run socialist programs such as Medicare and Medicaid deny more claims than private sector insurance companies. As far as medications are concerned, in my locale, certain pharmacies under the control of big corporations offer, $4.00 prescriptions and FREE antibiotics for those who choose to make the effort to get them, but yet there are patients that stop taking their blood pressure medicine because they say they can’t afford it? Frequently, when Medicaid denies a costly medication to a patient the evil drug company that makes that drug offers it free of charge. It is the drug companies that supply free medications at the local free health clinic. Let’s not forget them and perhaps say thanks. One woman at a local clinic complained when she had to pay $2.00 for a pair of prescription eye glasses wondering why they were not free. These are examples of just some of the entitlement personalities in my community alone. People don’t understand that money comes from the private sector taxpayers who work very hard and they are getting more embittered about being told that they have to pay more. I say there will never be enough money. Healthcare dollars should focus on catastrophic care and have many levels of health care options that are tailored to individuals. We need to help our brothers and sisters, who through no fault of their own are faced with cancers, accidents or any situation where the expense will be more than they can pay.

Irena, aka LAgirl, thinks like a child and believes everybody is so mean, unfair and greedy and there should be no end to the enormous amount of money that it takes to sustain a healthcare system. Guess what genius, people are not going to work for free, so how much money do you want? Maybe the politics of good intentions makes her feel superior and she needs that feeling to feed her enormous ego. Guess what? Focusing on business models that lead to measurable, sustainable outcomes at affordable prices akin to other things we choose to purchase makes me feel super good. Measurable outcome should be part the main focus of any government plan that has to do with taxpayer money. However, the party of class warfare and good intentions is seriously flawed and the last electrion proves that.

Next…

Here are several polls and examples of wait-lists and other miseries brought on by government intervention in healthcare in other countries. This is why educated, reasonable Americans are hesitant to accept Obama care in it’s present rushed form. We want more thought put into reforming the parts that don’t serve people well in OUR unique health care system so as not to destroy the quality and accessibility we still have in OUR healthcare system today, that are second to none.

I did throw in a bright note article on Russia beyond the polling information. :slight_smile:

[size:14pt]Satisfaction with Quality, Current Cover[/size]age

CNN/Opinion Research:
CNN/Opinion Research released its latest poll on the public’s view of the health care reform debate. One of the key findings from the poll:
74% of people are satisfied with their personal health insurance coverage.1
83% of people are satisfied with their own health care.2
Employee Benefits Research Institute:
Benefits Research Institute released its findings from the 2009 Health Confidence Survey (HCS): 3
Fifty-eight percent of those with health insurance coverage are extremely or very satisfied with their current plan, and approximately one-third (30 percent) are somewhat satisfied
84% of people surveyed said the quality of their personal health insurance was either excellent or good.4
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics:
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics released its latest poll on American’s attitudes on a variety of issues including health care reform and the current health care system. Here are some of the key findings related to people’s personal health care coverage:
83% of people surveyed said the quality of care they receive is either excellent or good.5
Quinnipiac University:
Quinnipiac University released a nationwide survey on the public’s attitude about health care reform. The survey included this finding:
Employee Benefits Research Institute:
85% of Americans are very or somewhat satisfied with their own health insurance plan.6
The University of Texas/Zogby International:
The University of Texas/Zogby International released a poll on American attitudes on healthcare reform — including satisfaction with health care, opinions of potential reform legislation, and how to potentially pay for health care for the uninsured. The poll included this finding:
84% of people are satisfied with their health care.7
The Washington Post:
The Washington Post released a survey focused on health care on June 22. The survey demonstrated that the public is extremely satisfied with their own personal health plan.
81% of people are satisfied with their health insurance coverage.8
88% of people are satisfied with the quality of care they receive.9
The New York Times:
The New York Times released a survey focused on health care on June 21. While there was much made about the public’s split on issues, one thing was clear – they are satisfied with their own coverage.
77% of people are satisfied with the quality of their own care.10
77% of people said that basic medical care covered by their health insurance plan is affordable.11
Democracy Corps:
Democracy Corps released their latest poll on health care reform. One finding from the polling shows people are satisfied with their own insurance.12
72% of people are satisfied with their own health insurance coverage vs. 75% in 1993 – not a significant change.
76% of self-identified independents are satisfied with their coverage as are 72% of Democrats and 78% of Republicans.
Gallup:
According to one of Gallup’s most recent health care surveys, Americans give a high approval rating for the quality of care they personally receive as well as a high approval rating of their personal health care coverage.
“Among all Americans, 83% say the quality of healthcare they receive is either ‘excellent’ or ‘good.’ Only 16% say it’s either ‘only fair’ or ‘poor.’”13
“Americans are only a bit less positive about their own healthcare coverage, with 67% describing the coverage they now have as excellent or good.”14
“Gallup’s conclusion: “At the same time, [Americans surveyed] are pleased with the quality of medical treatment in the country, and are mostly satisfied with their own healthcare quality, coverage, and costs.”15
Employee Benefits Research Institute:
The Employee Benefits Research Institute is known as a leader in helping to develop “sound employee benefit programs and sound public policy through objective research and education.” According to EBRI’s 2008 Consumer Engagement in Health Care Survey:
93% of people enrolled in a traditional health care plan were satisfied with the quality of coverage they received through their health plan (including 31% extremely satisfied).18
93% of people enrolled in a traditional health care plan were satisfied with their plan.19
86% of people enrolled in a traditional health care plan were likely to stay with their current plan.20
(Note: The EBRI/MGA Consumer Engagement in Health Care Survey is an online survey of privately insured adults ages 21-64. A traditional private health care plan is defined as a broad range of plan types, including HMOs, PPOs, other managed care plans and plans with a broad variety of cost sharing arrangements as well as no deductible or deductibles that are below current thresholds that would quality for HSA tax preference, and do not have an HRA-based plan.)
References:
1.CNN/Opinion Research Poll, July 31-August 3, 2009.
2.Ibid.
3.Employee Benefit Research Institute, 2009 Health Confidence Survey, July 2009.
4.Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, July 21-22, 2009.
5.Ibid
6.Quinnipiac University Poll, June 23-28, 2009.
7.The University of Texas/ Zogby International Poll, June 18-22, 2009.
8.The Washington Post, Survey, June 18-21, 2009.
9.The Washington Post, June 18-21, 2009.
10.The New York Times, June 12-16, 2009.
11.The New York Times, June 12-16, 2009.
12.Democracy Corps, “The Health Care Reform Debate”, June 15, 2009.
13.Gallup.com, “Americans Rate National and Personal Healthcare Differently”, December 4, 2008,Accessed on June 3, 2009.
14.Ibid.
15.Ibid.
16.CNN/Opinion Research Poll, March 12-15, 2009.
17.Ibid.
18.Employee Benefit Research Institute, 2008 Consumer Engagement in Health Care Survey, p.7.
19.Ibid, p.7.
20.Ibid, p.9.

Government Intervention in different countries that Irena has been to most likely

[b]New Zealand[/b]

New Zealand’s Ministry of Health is the New Zealand “Government’s principal agent and advisor on health and disability.”
On the waiting list roller-coaster

  • Martin Johnson, March 20, 2008 [The New Zealand Herald]
    No charge for trips to emergency department
    The figures show most people who arrive at the emergency departments don’t need to be there.- Alison Brown, December 17, 2004 [Rotorua Daily Post]
    Surgical waiting lists numbers come under twin attacks
  • November 15, 2004 [stuff.co.nz]
    Hospital Waiting Lists Under Serious Pressure
  • October 26, 2004 [Scoop New Zealand News]
    Hundreds on waiting list as hospital pleads for help
  • August 23, 2004 [The New Zealand Herald]
    Private hospitals offer help with waiting lists
  • August 12, 2004 [The New Zealand Herald]
    Alarm over GP shortage
  • July 5, 2004 [The New Zealand Herald]
    Hospital urges patients to stay away unless really ill
  • March 6, 2004 [The New Zealand Herald]

[b]Russia:[/b]
Capitalism Comes to Russian Health Care
by Michael Wines
December 22, 2000 New York Times

With the “free” government-run health system in Russia in a state of collapse, an increasing amount of health care is being provided by for-profit clinics and hospitals.
Even the poor care that is available in underfunded and outdated hospitals usually requires bribes or gratuities to health care workers.
A typical surgeon at a public hospital might take home 1,500 rubles a month – $50 – and if lucky, add $100 in legitimate overtime and other supplements.
At a state-of-the art private hospital near Moscow, a surgeon can make as much as $3,000 a month.
By some estimates, private spending for drugs and physicians’ services approached 2.6 percent of gross domestic product in 1998, almost equal to the 3 percent the government spent on free care. While only 3 to 5 percent of Russians can afford private hospitals, their relatively low prices are attracting expatriates and funding modernization of the health care system – including some public institutions that take for-profit patients.

[b]The UK:[/b]
BURNHAM FORGETS 230,000 ON LIST
by Macer Hall, August 14, 2009 Daily Express (UK)

HEALTH Secretary Andy Burnham was under fire last night after admitting he cared more about his favourite football team than the National Health Service.
The gaffe-prone Cabinet Minister had already caused embarrassment by claiming there were “no waiting lists” in the NHS.
But official figures published yesterday revealed that more than 230,000 patients are being forced to wait more than 18 weeks for hospital treatment.
Writing on an internet social networking site, Mr Burnham wrote: “Over the moon about strong support for NHS – an institution I will defend to my dying day, 2nd only to Everton FC.”
The flippant remark, part of a Government-backed internet campaign on the Twitter website to trumpet the NHS’s achievements, provoked anger yesterday.
A senior Tory said: “This is an inappropriate remark from the minister in charge of the National Health Service. It demonstrates a worrying lack of maturity.”
A source close to Mr Burnham said: “Andy is incredibly proud of the NHS” and accused leading Tories of “denigrating” the Health Service.
Gordon Brown and other senior ministers yesterday added messages to the welovetheNHS campaign, launched in response to a bitter debate about publicly funded health care in the US.
A message from the Prime Minister said: “NHS often makes the difference between pain and comfort, despair and hope, life and death. Thanks for always being there.”
His wife Sarah Brown wrote: “welovetheNHS – more than words can say.”
But the Downing Street twittering was undermined when official NHS monthly figures for June showed that 236,316 patients faced a wait of more than 18 weeks between GP referral and admission for hospital treatment.
Lib Dem health spokesman Norman Lamb said: “Three days after the Health Secretary claimed there were no more waiting lists in the NHS, ­Government figures have shown that a quarter of a million people are stuck waiting longer than 18 weeks for ­treatment.
“Andy Burnham’s insensitive comments will anger the thousands of patients who are still waiting.”
Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said: “Labour’s 18-week waiting time target has been widely discredited. The Government only met it by moving the goalposts and it hasn’t ended waiting in the NHS.
“People should not be waiting needlessly for treatment.
“But the way to sort that out is to improve treatment capacity in the NHS through allowing independent and voluntary-sector providers to do NHS work. It’s not through top-down targets that create stacks of paperwork and are a distraction for doctors and nurses.”
Mr Burnham provoked astonishment in a radio interview earlier this week by saying: “We have no waiting lists now in the NHS.”
Department of Health officials later clarified his remarks by saying that average waiting times were 7.7 weeks, the lowest since records began.
A Department spokesman said last night: “Record investment and dedicated staff have given patients the shortest waits since NHS records began.
“Patients should start treatment within 18 weeks of referral from a GP and are often treated much faster than this.
“In the 1990s it was not uncommon for people to wait 18 months or more for their operation, with some people dying on the waiting list.”
The June waiting list figures compare with a total of 280,663 patients waiting more than 18 weeks in May.
The welovetheNHS campaign on Twitter follows angry confrontations in the US over President Barack Obama’s plan for state-funded federal health care.
Opponents have branded his plans “Orwellian” and “socialist”.
Former Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin said the proposed system was “downright evil”.
Tory Euro MP Daniel Hannan joined the debate during a recent visit to America, describing the NHS as “Marxist” and warning Americans: “Ponder our example and tremble.”
Tory leader David Cameron disowned his comments yesterday.
He said: “I support the NHS 100 per cent. The Conservative Party backs the NHS 100 per cent.
“It is incredibly important for my family, it’s incredibly important for the country.”

[b]Canada:[/b]
Wait times for surgery,
medical treatments at all-time high: report
by staff writer, October 15, 2007 CBC News (Canada)

The average wait time for a Canadian awaiting surgery or other medical treatment is now 18.3 weeks, a new high, according to a report released Monday.
That’s an increase of 97 per cent over 14 years, the report says.
“Canadians wait longer than Americans, Germans, and Swedes for cardiac care, although not as long as New Zealanders or the British,” it reads. “Economists attempting to quantify the cost of this waiting time have estimated it to amount to $1,100 to $5,600 annually per patient.”
The report, the 17th annual edition of Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada, is published by the Fraser Institute, an independent Canadian research organization.
“Despite government promises and the billions of dollars funnelled into the Canadian health-care system, the average patient waited more than 18 weeks in 2007 between seeing their family doctor and receiving the surgery or treatment they required,” said Nadeem Esmail, director of Health System Performance Studies at the Fraser Institute and co-author of the report, in a release.
The total median waiting time for patients between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, increased to 18.3 weeks from 17.8 weeks in 2006, according to the report.
“The small increase in waiting time between 2006 and 2007 is primarily the result of an increase in the first wait – the wait between visiting a general practitioner and attending a consultation with a specialist,” the report says.
The report also found that total wait times increased in six provinces: Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. British Columbia, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island lowered their wait times.
Waiting times best in Ontario
Ontario recorded the shortest wait time overall (the wait between visiting a general practitioner and receiving treatment) at 15.0 weeks, followed by British Columbia (19.0 weeks) and Quebec (19.4 weeks). Saskatchewan (27.2 weeks), New Brunswick (25.2 weeks) and Nova Scotia (24.8 weeks) recorded the longest waits in Canada.
Despite have one of the shorter waits among the provinces, Quebec’s 19.4-week wait shows that despite more money directed at fixing the problem, there hasn’t been any improvement, Tasha Kheiriddin, the Quebec director of the Fraser Institute, told CBC News Monday.
She says Quebec has invested millions of dollars over the past few years in efforts to reduce wait times, but that inefficiencies in the public system are proving to be obstacles.
“What this tells us is spending more money in the system does not decrease wait times. In fact it’s the opposite result, so we have to look at other solutions,” she said.
Across Canada, the wait time between referral by a GP and consultation with a specialist rose to 9.2 weeks from the 8.8 weeks recorded in 2006. The shortest waits for specialist consultations were in Ontario (7.6 weeks), Manitoba (8.2 weeks) and British Columbia (8.8 weeks).
The longest waits for consultation with a specialist were recorded in New Brunswick (14.7 weeks), Newfoundland and Labrador (13.5 weeks) and Prince Edward Island (12.7 weeks).
The wait time between a specialist consultation and treatment – the second stage of waiting – increased to 9.1 weeks from 9.0 weeks in 2006. The shortest specialist-to-treatment waits were found in Ontario (7.3 weeks), Alberta (8.9 weeks) and Quebec (9.4 weeks), while the longest waits were in Saskatchewan (16.5 weeks), Nova Scotia (13.6 weeks) and Manitoba (12.0 weeks).
The shortest total waits (between referral by a general practitioner and treatment) occurred in medical oncology (4.2 weeks), radiation oncology (5.7 weeks) and elective cardiovascular surgery (8.4 weeks).
Patients endured the longest waits between a GP referral and orthopedic surgery (38.1 weeks), plastic surgery (34.8 weeks) and neurosurgery (27.2 weeks).
Nova Scotia best for CT scans
Patients also experienced significant waiting times for various diagnostic tests across Canada, such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound scans.
The median wait for a CT scan across Canada was 4.8 weeks. British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia had the shortest waits for CT scans (4.0 weeks), with Manitoba experiencing the highest wait (8.0 weeks).
The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 10.1 weeks. Patients in Ontario experienced the shortest wait for an MRI (7.8 weeks), while Newfoundland and Labrador residents waited the longest (20.0 weeks).

[b]In New Zealand:[/b]

Private hospitals offer help
with waiting lists
by unknown
August 12, 2004 The New Zealand Herald

The Government has been told it can cut waiting lists for heart surgery significantly by using private hospitals more often.
Figures released on Sunday showed 47 patients had been waiting more than the prescribed six months for cardiothoracic surgery at Wellington Hospital.
But the Private Hospitals Association says the waiting lists would not be excessive if the Government relied less on public hospitals.
“The private sector has the capacity to perform extra operations, including cardiac procedures, which the public sector simply does not have,” association vice-president Michael Woodhouse said yesterday.
“I cannot see the logic of leaving people on waiting lists for long periods when there is the capacity in the private sector to [do] this surgery.”
In September last year, after public pressure, the Capital and Coast District Health Board cut the number of people waiting six months for heart surgery to zero and vowed to keep waiting times down.
But the waiting list has grown steadily again this year. The average delay is now 6.9 months.
“Waiting lists may be a fact of life but the current system regularly creates delays for people who have made plans for surgery and who clinically require the surgery,” Mr Woodhouse said.
“The Government must realise that a viable private sector is required in a country our size to support the public sector and that their ideological opposition to using the capacity and capability in the private sector is misplaced.”
Wellington Hospital provides heart surgery for Nelson, Marlborough, Hutt Valley, Hawkes Bay, Wairarapa, Wanganui and Manawatu.
Capital and Coast spokeswoman Chris Lowry said on Sunday that the board was doing everything it could to reduce the waiting list. But efforts were being thwarted by a steady stream of acute cases forcing the postponement of less urgent operations.
In May, Wellington Hospital contracted out 16 operations to the private Wakefield Hospital.

[b]In Australia:[/b]

Public patients wait
longer for surgery
by staff writer
June 29, 2005 The Sydney Morning Herald

Patients in the nation’s public hospitals are waiting longer to have surgery than they were six years ago, a new report has found.
In Tasmania’s public hospitals, the situation is especially bleak, with patients waiting more than 14 months - up to 432 days - to have a total knee replacement, and 393 days for cataract extraction.
The national average for a hip replacement was 134 days and 82 days for cataract extraction.
The government report, The State of Our Public Hospitals, relied on statistics provided by public hospitals for the 2003/04 period.
It showed elective surgery waiting times had worsened since 1999, with just over 15 per cent of patients not being operated on within the clinically-appropriate time.
The report said nationally, admissions for elective surgery within the set timeframe fell by six per cent between 1998/99 and 2003/04.
“This means that you were less likely to be seen within the recommended time in 2003/04 than you were six years ago,” the report said.
It said many people mistakenly thought the term “elective surgery” meant choosing to undergo a non-essential or optional surgical procedure.
“Much of the elective surgery undertaken in Australia’s hospitals is urgent and critical, such as coronary bypass operations and hip replacements, which are clearly necessary and often fundamental for a person’s wellbeing,” it said.
Chair of the Australian Medical Association Federal Council, Dana Wainwright, said the jump in elective surgery wait times was a major worry.
“Our public hospitals are in serious trouble, they’re slowly deteriorating and we are very concerned,” Dr Wainwright said.
“The hospitals are overloaded and under-bedded and unless somebody moves to fix the problem now, we’ll end up with a two-tiered system: public and private.”
The data also revealed just over 30 per cent of emergency patients in Australia’s public hospitals did not receive treatment within the recommended time over the 12-month period.
South Australia fared worst, where 55 per cent of emergency patients were not seen within the recommended timeframe.
Queensland, the Northern Territory, Tasmania and NSW were also below the national average of 69 per cent, while Victoria and Western Australia had the best record for seeing emergency patients within the prescribed time.
Australian Healthcare Association executive director Prue Power, whose organisation represents public hospitals, said faced with a growing number of admissions and workforce shortages, the public sector was struggling to cope.
“The pressure on public hospitals can’t continue if we are going to maintain a high-quality of care and a satisfied workforce,” Ms Power said.
“There are problems in the system - partly to do with a lack of funding and a lack of transparency in funding, a stretched workforce and a lack of real collaboration between the public and private sectors.”
Health Minister Tony Abbott said the government was taking pressure off the public health system through private health incentives.

#49

Looks like another Fox news propaganda puppet. You have no compassion for the people who have with Pre Existing Conditions. Do think Jesus would only save rich and healthy. You say your a nurse where is the compassion for the poor and lame.
LA Girl has it right.

#50

Being in the insurance industry doesn’t provide credentials to judge this issue in an unbiased manner. Conversely, it provides a motive to back the option that is beneficial to the insurance industry and their job. I don’t blame them for sticking up for their interests. However, their interests do not align with the majority of this country who doesn’t work for an insurance company and doesn’t have a stake in whether they make money or stay in business.

I don’t “believe” anything. Belief is for people who can’t analyze facts. I take facts and come up with my own conclusions. If my reasoning was flawed, you’d be able to show how. Instead you basically said “you’re wrong because someone biased lives in my household”. That doesn’t show or prove any of my points are illogical or don’t make sense. Everything I said is basic common sense.

If someone you knew got cancer, was thrown off their insurance policy, and had to cash out their 401k and sell their house to pay for treatments in order to stay alive, you may have a different opinion.

p.s. Neither of you seem to undestand what “propoganda” means. No one would benefit from a government healthcare system except for the people. A beneficiary is necessary for something to be “propoganda”. “Propoganda” is for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical companies trying to convince gullible people that it is in the people’s best interests for these companies to complete on who gets to spend less on people’s health.

#51

Dee, all I can say is that if you had any confidence in anything you were saying, you wouldn’t have the need to resort to belittling and baseless namecalling. You’re acting like an immature kid in middle school who yells and screams and calls everyone names instead of just sticking to the facts.

  • Government programs don’t have to be inefficient. It’s not a given and not something that cannot be set up in a way that isn’t. Any government program can be made accountable with rules and laws just like any other organization. The public education system in other countries demands accountability from teachers and schools, which is why it’s so much better than the US. Just because something is paid by the government doesn’t have to mean it’s inefficient. It’s all about how you set up the system to operate. There is no reason competition and accountability couldn’t be built into the model.

  • If you’re familiar with Google Finance, then surely you’re able to look up profits of the major insurance and pharmaceudical companies. If they were 4%, no one would invest in their stocks. Insurance companies are, in fact, making their record profits: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HealthCare/health-insurers-post-record-profits/story?id=9818699

  • Obama’s healthcare changes prevent insurance companies from throwing people off when they get a deadly medical condition. That’s something. But let’s discuss what you think of this if/when you or your loved one gets cancer or another deadly disease. It’s always a lot easier to speak in abstract terms when the current flawed system doesn’t impact you personally just yet.

  • If members of Congress didn’t enjoy a tax-payer-funded healthcare themselves and weren’t getting shmoozed by insurance and pharmaceudical lobbiests, the problem of insurance companies being run as for-profit entities at the expense of people’s health would be resolved a lot quicker.

Anyway, I have other countries to visit and things to see over the holidays (you know, the type of stuff that makes you experience things outside your box). This will have to be continued in the new year.

#52

Ding! Happy New Year!

-Your link to ABC News is bogus statistical wizardry. It’s more propaganda filled with magical fulminations, stretched and contorted to mean whatever looks good for the opposing side’s government takeover of health care. This is what ABC “News” does well - it is the propaganda arm of this administration. The numbers come from an ultra liberal organization comprised of 1,000 ultra liberal donors, including unions, acorn chapters, and so on (list of donors is on the website) and you expect to convince others that you are not biased or unfair? You slipped up or else you rushed your post.

-If you have been reduced to basing your argument, with reliance on ABC “News”, The Daily Kos, Paul Krugman and The New York Times, then you need to find sources with much better facts. Let me help you a bit. Credible statistics on health care are readily available from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

-Insurance profits have varied between 2% - 8% over the years. And, why should they not make a profit? These are not gouging numbers. When we buy food, the food corporations make a profit. When we buy clothes, the manufacturers and business connected to them, make a profit. When we buy shelter, the real estate agent makes a profit and in turn, the local government collects property taxes. When we buy a car, used or pre-owned, that company makes a profit. These are things we need, food clothing and shelter and most probably a car. These are needs, just like health care, so why is health care any different? Obama needed a scapegoat and health insurance corporations are the lucky winners and you are robotically falling in line with fake facts.

-I couldn’t keep a straight face when you said, [b]"Government programs don’t have to be inefficient. It’s not a given and not something that cannot be set up in a way that isn’t."[/b] The French word “naive” comes to mind. Can you list some federal programs that are [b]efficient[/b], with minimal fraud, corruption or waste? Same will happen with government controlled health care (socialism). We already have seen the furure with Medicare and Medicaid, Veterens Adminisstration, DMV, post office, katrina to name a few. We are told that HR3590 with all it’s 2,200 pages that congress people admitted to not reading before passing, will bring health care coverage to 30 million more people and reduce costs. More bunk. Reducing costs means rationing the care. Who decides this? This new health care bill is so full of holes that congress had to pass it quickly so Americans could not possibly have the opportunity to ask the hard questions that they the congress and the president could not answer with a straight face. Passing it quick like a bunny was their only chance for passage, so how good can it be?

-Somebody asked [size:14pt]what would Jesus do[/size]. I am not a theologian, but I feel pretty sure that he would be against trickery with numbers. He would not approve of the stern command and control techniques that are being used to run the health insurance industry. He would not want free choice to be minimized by maximizing brute force ---- forcing people to buy certain kinds of politically designed insurance, forcing insurers to cover services many consumers do not want to pay for and forcing insurers to curb premiums even as medical costs go up. The concepts of competition and free markets with limited government would settle this better than the so-called educated liberal elitists who are full of good intentions, but somehow always miss the mark for achieving a good outcome where unintended things result that make people’s lives harder and more expensive in the end. [size:14pt]Jesus would probably say in conclusion, “Blessed are the children, for they shall inherit the national debt”.[/size]

Hey, James, I just noticed that this thread was split away from “Plucking by the Electrologist” and re-titled somewhat appropriately. Next time I talk to you, remind me to tell you about my whirlwind trip to Dublin and London last week.

#53

  • ABC News and dozens of other independent organizations didn’t create anything out of thin air. They posted actual numbers. The only thing you can contradict them with are conflicting actual numbers. You don’t post any, so I’m assuming you don’t have them. Ranting that dozens of established organizations are all lying is not a fact that you can debate with. Post links to numbers from credible sources.

  • I already provided you with examples of efficiently run gov’t organizations above - see my comment about the education system in other countries where student education levels are miles ahead of the US (South Korea, Finland, Japan, etc).

#54

Just because established institutions like ABC “News” have been in existence for years, does not mean it can’t spew propaganda that jacks up a political party they identify with. If you read the piece, you would have seen that even ABC reports that the health insurance companies fall below what average business profits are. ABC quoted 5.7% profit as a whole. This story is clearly one more reflection of the shameful deceit and descent of what ABC News want the masses to believe, as opposed to getting down on the real problems of how to get affordable, accessible health care for all American citizens. Government control over anything is always an unmitigated disaster.

Here are some real numbers with real sources listed. Be careful, viewing this link could cause hormonal imbalance on a scale that causes massive insane hair growth.

[size:20pt]http://www.usdebtclock.org/[/size]

Do you understand what the word ‘TRILLION’ means? Why are you comparing our economy and a 310,000,000 U.S. population with countries like South Korea, Finland and Japan? You are trying to compare apples to oranges which shows you are in total denial about this national debt. I’m very cranky because my instincts tell me this is going to end be very bad. Going bankrupt is a national defense issue and it uplifts and helps no one whether they are in the “R” camp or the “D” camp. In the end, health care profits account for very little in the big scheme, just like food profits, clothing profits and shelter profits, so conserve your energy.

#55

  • Do you understand how insurance companies make a profit? Do you understand what being a publicly traded company means? Have you ever purchased a stock? Do you understand what the goal of any publicly traded business is? --> To make as much profit as possible. Do you know what profit is? Money they take in minus expenses. Our system is set up in a way that encourages insurance companies to get out of spending on your health as much as possible so they can make the most money (that’s the only way they make money, i.e. denying claims or dropping expensive members). If you don’t see how this is a fundamental problem that doesn’t result in providing the best healthcare to the population, you are not actually thinking.

  • The 5.7% number is not talking about profits. It’s talking about spending. Are you actually reading? Have you taken an accounting course?

  • You still haven’t provided any contradicting numbers. Baseless rants aren’t facts. The profit numbers from the article come straight from the insurance companies financial statements that they have to disclose to shareholders. They’re available to everyone publicly. I have a feeling you’ve never purchased a stock and don’t really understand how the stock market works (or the economy in general since this is a huge part of it).

  • Japan’s population is not that different, especially considering the fact that they have almost 4 times the density (i.e. our area is much bigger, but they have almost 4 times more people living per square kilometer). You’ve probably never tried to get into a subway in Tokyo, I have.
    Do some research first. Either way, a good model is a good model. If it works, it works, regardless of the size.

  • Healthcare is not the spending that resulted in our debt. Wars, defense, and lack of regulation for the banks did. That’s what you need to be focusing on if you’re so worried about it. Did you worry about our debt when you were pro-war? What about when you scream for lack of regulations for corporations (like the banks that got us into a lot of this mess)?

#56

-I never stated my position on being pro-war or anti-war. I never stated my position about lack of regulations (or over-regulating) for corporations. So, how do you know what is in my heart? You are profiling me again like only a well-indoctrinated highly educated liberal elitist does best.

-I actually appreciate all the good products and services corporations bring to mankind, but do count me in as among the first to strongly condemn any business that oversteps,deceives or cooks the books. My hate and disdain for such institutions runs deep. Did you see “Inside Job” yet? That’s what I’m talking about, but in this documentary, we are talking about banks, wall street and government -all cozy buddies in crime. I don’t think you have any idea of what many well-run corporations do with their profits, let alone for mankind. What did they “teach” you at UC Berkeley?

-Go to [size:26pt]www.usdebtclock.org[/size] and tell me again that healthcare has not been a major contributer to our national debt. Cost of wars, Social Security, interest on the debt falls behind the spending levels of government run health care, Medicare and Medicaid. They are all listed under largest budget items section. I’m trying so hard to keep a straight face when you declare such things :confused: .

#57

  • What corporations do with their profits is irrelevant. Are you even following the discussion or you’re too busy coming up with baseless insults? We’re talking about the fact that insurance companies profits come as a direct result of NOT paying for medical services. This is a fundamental problem with the way our system is set up. Why should any company profit from not providing the best thing possible for people? You are ignoring the basic premise of this entire discussion.

  • Are you proposing to get rid of Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security? I’m guessing you’re almost at an age when you are going to be relying on it, if you’re not already. If not, you should focus on the wars/national defense spending, which is using up just as much without anything to show for it. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are keeping people alive.

#58

Okay, I just about spewed my vegetable steamed dumpling with no MSG, no preservatives and no trans fats across the room when I read this. So, why is health care any different than food, clothing and shelter? People need food, clothing and shelter,too. Should food corporations, clothing corporations and home/apartment real estate corporations/businesses make profits? Should communication companies make profits? How about transportation services. Profits for them? Just who should and who should not make profits according to you? Since people need food, clothing and shelter, should any profit they make go towards giving those profits back for more or cheaper food, clothing and shelter? Or, should those industries not work for profit?

-Let me put it this way, if a for profit business was run the way Medicare and Medicaid have been run for 50 of the 65 years it has been around, then, that for profit business would have been long gone by now and a new model, a new brand, would have replaced it that could show accountability and sustainability. That is how free markets and competition settle things and that is better for the consumer patient side of things.

-I’m not holding my breath thinking I will receive what I have paid into Social Security during all my work years and you shouldn’t either. Better psychologically prepare yourself. It is grossly underfunded. We are broke and the promises are fake promises. The money isn’t really there. Refer to www.usdebtclock.org . Check out state debt top left hand corner. According to this clock, your state, New York, is really, really broke. The state you resided in last is really, really, really, REALLY broke. My state, Ohio, is just [size:8pt]really[/size] broke.

#59

  • You seem to lack the basic understanding of economics and how different businesses operate and make money. Healthcare is not food. You pay for food yourself. Insurance companies are the ones paying for your healthcare. All companies make money when they spend less than they take in. Companies that sell food, clothing, and other goods make money when they spend smart and sell a lot of product at a premium. Insurance companies make money when they sell policies to people and then spend as little as possible when those people want to get medical treatment. They don’t make money by spending money on your healthcare. And if they spent everyone’s premiums every year, they wouldn’t make any money. Their goal is to charge as much for premiums as possible and spend as little as possible on your healthcare (i.e. having members who pay premiums, but don’t use much healthcare and drop people who are too expensive to keep). A 10-year-old can grasp this basic difference. Healthcare is not clothing or food because we have insurance companies. I already tried to explain this basic concept to you a few pages ago: if people were purchasing all healthcare directly from healthcare providers, then the economics would be similar. But with insurance companies being the middleman, it’s not.

  • The Social Security you’ll be getting will be money that I am paying, not you. The money that you’ve paid has already been paid out to others before you. I’m the one who should be worried, not you.

  • Either way, you are missing the point, again. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid have been around for dozens of years now during times of prosperity and some of the best economic times. That’s not what caused the issues you’re referring to. The war spending did (do you realize how many gov’t contracts for this are being given out to private corporations with stock ties to Republican gov’t members? Since you’re basing a lot of your knowledge on movies, I hope they addressed this) along with the other issues I mentioned. Those are the new ones that got us into this mess.

  • Once again, a gov’t organization doesn’t have to be inefficient. A gov’t organization can be built on a model that involves competition too. Competition is not exclusive to private corporations. Teachers in schools who are turning out kids with higher test scores could be getting higher salaries, for example. Labor unions are the ones who don’t want this and other similar competition in such gov’t organizations. Since you like movies, go see Waiting for Superman or just read what Michelle Rhee tried to do in DC and how she was prevented from doing it.

#60

You seem to lack basic understanding of economics and how different health care companies work to not run into deficits and thus fall over a cliff, like our brilliant, big, bloated government does, despite the fact, that government run insurance (Medicare and Medicaid) turns down more claims than the private industry insurance companies do.

You and our beloved politicians love to show sympathy and deep concern for the consumer/patient by insisting that health insurance companies have to include certain unfunded benefit mandates. Mandates FORCE a business to offer things without offering them financial help to enforce those mandates. Mandates severely limit the free markets ability to develop and offer inexpensive plans that are tailored to individual buyers’ needs. State governments continue to meddle and demand benefit mandate laws, telling health care insurers that they must pay for or offer specific treatments whether they like it or not.

Thirty years ago, there were only about five mandate laws per state. Today, there on average about 40 mandates per state. The list of mandates I just found is long, but not by no means complete. They include - massage therapy, hearing aids, hormone replacement therapy, breast reductions, hair prosthesis, acupuncture,chiropractor visits, dieticians, contraceptives, drug abuse and alcohol abuse treatment, athletic trainer, marriage therapy, morbid obesity treatment, pastoral services, smoking sensation, speech therapy, varicose vein removal, port-wine stain elimination, in-vitro fertilization…and on and on and on…

These mandates are FORCED upon health care companies and alas, these mandates, full of good intentions, cause the insurance premiums to rise. The obvious result is costs are driven up for everybody, due to government meddling with private run companies that have to balance the budget somehow. Because the government seems to think they don’t have to have healthy balance sheets, they just keep running deficits and raising taxes for their flippant failures.

Because of government interference, a healthy 24 year old can’t get a catastrophic only policiy with low premiums, so they become one of the invincibles that simply don’t contribute to the insurance pool because they are priced out of the market, thus driving costs up further. So, when the 24 year breaks her leg skating, she has no insurance, but she still gets treatment, thus driving the cost up for those who have insurance that pay for her hospital bills by paying higher premiums. Good deal for her, bad deal for the the ones dutifully paying premiums. Government mandates cause costs to go up > then, insurance companies have to charge more > then insurance companies are evil and greedy > then government comes to our rescue to save us from a problem they caused?! Vicious.

Read up on Oregon and Massachusetts reform efforts. The price tags and access to care have been sobering. Illinois under Blago attempted to take a look at government run health care and it was voted down. There was not one vote in favor because of the price tag. In Wisconsin, again, government run health care voted down - too expensive. Connecticut? Price tag - cringe time there, too. Schwarzenegger, gone, but he, too, saw the price tag shock of government run health care and thus, there is no universal health care there either. You ask WHY??? Mandates and high taxes. Also, when the people that benefit from services do not directly pay for the services and the services are easily available, costs spiral out of control.

If people want one-size-fits-all health care, then politicians need to be very honest and talk about the doubling of taxes, being forced to pay higher premiums, long waiting times and lists, rationed care, and limited access to the newest and best cutting-edge medicine and surgeries that are readily availbale today.

I trust the free market and the spirit of competition to bring more to many. No doubt, the cost of care goes down within the structures of a free market. Government needs to butt out because they are by nature very inefficient, burdensome and clumsy. There is proof in what I am saying. I just gave you the mandate example that even a ten year old can understand.