gipsiefyre
11-06-2005, 05:48 AM
hi folks
i had a heart attack last dec 2004 and had a stent put in. i dont have any health insurance and i am start to notice that i have these same cholestrol bumps appearing on my body again
is there a natural or herbal cholestrol that can help immedeatly take care of this
i am over weight smoke to much and prob have high blood pressure and or diabeties ??? not sure of spelling
any help and or directions will be greatly arrpeciated my age is 41
tkx
gipsiefyre
i had a heart attack last dec 2004 and had a stent put in. i dont have any health insurance and i am start to notice that i have these same cholestrol bumps appearing on my body again
is there a natural or herbal cholestrol that can help immedeatly take care of this
i am over weight smoke to much and prob have high blood pressure and or diabeties ??? not sure of spelling
any help and or directions will be greatly arrpeciated my age is 41
tkx
gipsiefyre
Sponsor
Moxie75
11-06-2005, 09:15 AM
Go out and by the book "Stop The Inflammation Now" It has many case studies about people with stents and all of the things you named above. I'd like to tell you all the things you could do but it would be too much writing amd the book is dirt cheap like 5.99. It is written by Richard M Fleming. He is a nucleur cardiologist..Lisa
Lenin
11-06-2005, 09:45 AM
gipsie,
CHolesterol lumps on the skin are not a common condition. What makes you think you have them?
Are you talking about something like sebaceous cysts?
What are your blood cholesterol numbers like?
CHolesterol lumps on the skin are not a common condition. What makes you think you have them?
Are you talking about something like sebaceous cysts?
What are your blood cholesterol numbers like?
gipsiefyre
11-06-2005, 02:32 PM
the reason that i know these are cholestrol bumps is that i have had this happen to ne within 24 months
i cant get to a doctor because of the cost with no insurance
so i have to try to do this with natural/herbal
when they put my stent in they said that i had a real fatty liver and still have digestion problems and gall problems
so i must research on the net to find solutions
tkx
gipsiefyre
i cant get to a doctor because of the cost with no insurance
so i have to try to do this with natural/herbal
when they put my stent in they said that i had a real fatty liver and still have digestion problems and gall problems
so i must research on the net to find solutions
tkx
gipsiefyre
danielmpage
11-06-2005, 09:22 PM
Gipsiefire, I'm sorry that you don't have any health insurance. IMO, that is one of the big problems we face right now in the U.S. However, there are some things you can (and need) to do on your own. Since you have already had one heart attack, why haven't you stopped smoking? I know it's extremely difficult, but we're talking about your life here!! If you continue to smoke, you are dramatically increasing your risk for a repeat heart attack. If you continue to do what you did in the past, you will end up with the same results in the future. I would recommend:
1)Read "The 8 Week Cholesterol Cure" by Robert Kowalski.
2)Stop smoking
3)Start walking around the block and eventually increase to 2 miles/day
4)Eat plenty of fruits/vegetables, get plenty of fiber and drink lots of water.
5)Get to a doctor and have your cholesterol checked regularly, even if you have to pay yourself or use your credit card. That way, you can monitor your progress. In fact, you could use the money that you once spent on cigarettes to pay for the checkups to your doctor.
1)Read "The 8 Week Cholesterol Cure" by Robert Kowalski.
2)Stop smoking
3)Start walking around the block and eventually increase to 2 miles/day
4)Eat plenty of fruits/vegetables, get plenty of fiber and drink lots of water.
5)Get to a doctor and have your cholesterol checked regularly, even if you have to pay yourself or use your credit card. That way, you can monitor your progress. In fact, you could use the money that you once spent on cigarettes to pay for the checkups to your doctor.
Uff-Da!
11-06-2005, 09:57 PM
I agree with everything danielmpage said.
I don't know what your financial situation is, but IMHO one's health should be high on the priority list when it comes to budgeting. I may have health insurance, but with a $1500 deductible, I may as well not have. Only twice in eleven years have I met my deductible, and then insurance only covered a couple of hundred dollars. I'm retired on social security and a very modest pension. But, like daniel said, one's health is one's life. So I may drive a 1986 car, never go to movies or take a trip and rarely eat out, but I do go to the doctor as needed.
Maybe your financial situation is even worse than mine. But please see if you can't juggle your budget, get rid of that cigarette cost, and use the savings to see a doctor for appropriate tests. Depending upon the results, you may be able to make the changes you need through diet and other lifestyle changes alone. Be sure you TELL the doctor that your budget is very limited, so he will try to help you find ways to solve your problems without meds if possible. In the event that doesn't work and you need prescription medication, the doctors are often provided with samples you can pick up if you need to. Also some of the pharmaceutical companies have special programs for reduced-cost medications if you are low-income.
I don't know what your financial situation is, but IMHO one's health should be high on the priority list when it comes to budgeting. I may have health insurance, but with a $1500 deductible, I may as well not have. Only twice in eleven years have I met my deductible, and then insurance only covered a couple of hundred dollars. I'm retired on social security and a very modest pension. But, like daniel said, one's health is one's life. So I may drive a 1986 car, never go to movies or take a trip and rarely eat out, but I do go to the doctor as needed.
Maybe your financial situation is even worse than mine. But please see if you can't juggle your budget, get rid of that cigarette cost, and use the savings to see a doctor for appropriate tests. Depending upon the results, you may be able to make the changes you need through diet and other lifestyle changes alone. Be sure you TELL the doctor that your budget is very limited, so he will try to help you find ways to solve your problems without meds if possible. In the event that doesn't work and you need prescription medication, the doctors are often provided with samples you can pick up if you need to. Also some of the pharmaceutical companies have special programs for reduced-cost medications if you are low-income.
HubbleRules
11-08-2005, 02:50 AM
All,
When I read posts like the above ones, I realize just how broken health insurance is in this country. Seems like the only ones who have good coverage are the President, the Congress and the Senate. Hmmmm, maybe that (plus massive campaign contributions from pharmas and insurance companies) are why the govt continues to do absolutely nothing to address the problem.
I urge everyone to write their Congressman and Senator and urge them to start moving in the direction of a government sponsored, single payer health care system - aka: national health care.
The health care system in this country is broken. 46 million have no health insurance, and god only knows how many are uninsured.
Corporations can't pickup the ever escalating cost any longer - the government HAS to get involved.
I'm relatively lucky in that my wife and I both work. However, my company just significantly boosted the employee's share of health insurance costs (again) and in a worst-case scenario, I could pay up to $10,000 in costs - including premiums and deductibles and co-payments (should we have high medical costs next year). The premiums alone are between $4000 and $6000 depending upon the specific plan I chose. So, we are looking at getting health insurance thru my wife's company - their coverage appears to be better - but we are still getting info on it.
And I know of others whose company either have worse plans, or none at all, or where you have to wait 2 years before you're even eligible for coverage...
It's high-time that our government started setting national priorities that are in line with the issues Americans are facing in their day-to-day lives. I feel very strongly that our country is going in the wrong direction on a number of fronts.
My advice is - don't just sit their and take it - get involved! Vote... Write or call your representatives, and urge your friends to do the same.
HubbleRules
:cool:
When I read posts like the above ones, I realize just how broken health insurance is in this country. Seems like the only ones who have good coverage are the President, the Congress and the Senate. Hmmmm, maybe that (plus massive campaign contributions from pharmas and insurance companies) are why the govt continues to do absolutely nothing to address the problem.
I urge everyone to write their Congressman and Senator and urge them to start moving in the direction of a government sponsored, single payer health care system - aka: national health care.
The health care system in this country is broken. 46 million have no health insurance, and god only knows how many are uninsured.
Corporations can't pickup the ever escalating cost any longer - the government HAS to get involved.
I'm relatively lucky in that my wife and I both work. However, my company just significantly boosted the employee's share of health insurance costs (again) and in a worst-case scenario, I could pay up to $10,000 in costs - including premiums and deductibles and co-payments (should we have high medical costs next year). The premiums alone are between $4000 and $6000 depending upon the specific plan I chose. So, we are looking at getting health insurance thru my wife's company - their coverage appears to be better - but we are still getting info on it.
And I know of others whose company either have worse plans, or none at all, or where you have to wait 2 years before you're even eligible for coverage...
It's high-time that our government started setting national priorities that are in line with the issues Americans are facing in their day-to-day lives. I feel very strongly that our country is going in the wrong direction on a number of fronts.
My advice is - don't just sit their and take it - get involved! Vote... Write or call your representatives, and urge your friends to do the same.
HubbleRules
:cool:
Tank113
11-08-2005, 02:57 AM
My Grandpa Has High Cholestrol :Sad:
Lenin
11-08-2005, 08:53 AM
Hubble,
You and I don't often agree on things, but I am with you 100% here. I just LOVE when a congressman talks about the evils of socialized medicine when each and every one of them has exacly that...a gilt-edged health care plan purchased with taxes.
You and I don't often agree on things, but I am with you 100% here. I just LOVE when a congressman talks about the evils of socialized medicine when each and every one of them has exacly that...a gilt-edged health care plan purchased with taxes.
janeslk
11-08-2005, 11:24 AM
I don't know what the answer is in regard to health care. You are lucky that an employer pays part of your healthcare costs. We are self-employed and pay high premiums that only cover catastrophic events. My only problem is that the countries that have "socialized" medicine seem to have inferior health care, long waits for routine tests and even longer waits for needed surgery. My doctor told me that when he went to France to study that he witnessed group gynocolgy exams--10 women with their legs in the stirrups while one doctor went from one to the next.
I have also read that getting a routine CT scan can take months in Canada, but there may be posters here that can disavow that claim. I believe I read in England there is consideration being given to allowing patients to opt into a private system since the public health care is so bad.
I handle my FIL's health bills through Medicare and all of it is paid by the government. He had an overnight stay in the hospital for elevated blood pressure and the bill was $8,000--so many tests were ordered that I have to wonder if they were all needed since his blood pressure dropped after a few hours. He had developed some slight fluid build-up around his heart and went home the next morning.
I have to wonder if in the end we would all end up paying more for a poorer health care system. Just a different point of view.
Jane (who is standing in the corner waiting for the bricks to fly)
I have also read that getting a routine CT scan can take months in Canada, but there may be posters here that can disavow that claim. I believe I read in England there is consideration being given to allowing patients to opt into a private system since the public health care is so bad.
I handle my FIL's health bills through Medicare and all of it is paid by the government. He had an overnight stay in the hospital for elevated blood pressure and the bill was $8,000--so many tests were ordered that I have to wonder if they were all needed since his blood pressure dropped after a few hours. He had developed some slight fluid build-up around his heart and went home the next morning.
I have to wonder if in the end we would all end up paying more for a poorer health care system. Just a different point of view.
Jane (who is standing in the corner waiting for the bricks to fly)
starsofglass
11-08-2005, 01:38 PM
In my country, Belgium, we have "socialised" medicine, but also a very high quality of medicine! No long waits for routine tests either. For surgery I wouldn't know, depends on which type of surgery I gues, but I have never heard anyone in my country complain. All of you, just come to Belgium :)
HubbleRules
11-08-2005, 02:06 PM
Hubble,
You and I don't often agree on things, but I am with you 100% here. I just LOVE when a congressman talks about the evils of socialized medicine when each and every one of them has exacly that...a gilt-edged health care plan purchased with taxes.
Lenin,
Are you sure you're feeling OK??? That's already once this year that you've agreed with me... :wave: (only kidding) :D
HubbleRules
:cool:
You and I don't often agree on things, but I am with you 100% here. I just LOVE when a congressman talks about the evils of socialized medicine when each and every one of them has exacly that...a gilt-edged health care plan purchased with taxes.
Lenin,
Are you sure you're feeling OK??? That's already once this year that you've agreed with me... :wave: (only kidding) :D
HubbleRules
:cool:
JJ
11-08-2005, 04:16 PM
Definitely have to agree about our very high priced health care insurance, it is totally out of control. When hubby and I were both working we had great plans, which over the years got downgraded every few years, but it was still within our budget, so we didn't complain much.
Now that we are both retired, it is not going so well. We stayed with hubby's insurance as it was better coverage then mine, but seeing he had to retire early, I'm not covered to age 65. Agreement was, I was covered for 5 years from his retirement date, which was up this year, so in Aug. we had to shell out 10,000 to keep me insured for another year, as I will switch to Medicare next year. I may never need the costly coverage, but God forbid anything happened if I chose not to pay, we would be sunk!!! these days one or two days in a hospital can wipe U right out, so U are forced to pay..BIG TIME!!
Like everyone else, I am sick of listening to the politicans say they are going to fix things, and do SQUAT!! Oh yes, they talk a good game, but as soon as they are finished talking, they totally swish the subject under a rug. I think it is disgusting what older folks have to pay out these days, especially when U are on a fixed income. Yes, I know a couple of politicians and have spoken to them by phone and in person at their rallys, but I still don't see anything being done. Seems in foreign countries they value their older folks, here we seem to be put out to pasture to fend for ourselves.
OK, I had my vent, now I feel better. Have a good one folks..... :wave:
Now that we are both retired, it is not going so well. We stayed with hubby's insurance as it was better coverage then mine, but seeing he had to retire early, I'm not covered to age 65. Agreement was, I was covered for 5 years from his retirement date, which was up this year, so in Aug. we had to shell out 10,000 to keep me insured for another year, as I will switch to Medicare next year. I may never need the costly coverage, but God forbid anything happened if I chose not to pay, we would be sunk!!! these days one or two days in a hospital can wipe U right out, so U are forced to pay..BIG TIME!!
Like everyone else, I am sick of listening to the politicans say they are going to fix things, and do SQUAT!! Oh yes, they talk a good game, but as soon as they are finished talking, they totally swish the subject under a rug. I think it is disgusting what older folks have to pay out these days, especially when U are on a fixed income. Yes, I know a couple of politicians and have spoken to them by phone and in person at their rallys, but I still don't see anything being done. Seems in foreign countries they value their older folks, here we seem to be put out to pasture to fend for ourselves.
OK, I had my vent, now I feel better. Have a good one folks..... :wave:
gipsiefyre
11-09-2005, 05:07 AM
yes ya'll i would tend to agree that our pokiticiak system and health care system needs HELP
and yes i know that i need to quit these stupid cancer sticks but 1 step at a time.
well thank God for my wife i do really love her she has made me become a veggie damn im from Texas where is the beef ????? i mean i am a 41 yr old male and to me its not a meal without MEAT :) but I have now been doing this diet for 2 days now man this sure is hard no meat :(
but i know that this will have to be done so that my body can heal
she has done alot of research on the net and has me doing supplements diet exercise and the such talk about a lifestyle change but have to do this to live longer
i know that i will be able to eat meat again after this gall bladder thing passes but i am sure glad of this fourom ( not sure of spelling)
tkx again
gipsiefyre
and yes i know that i need to quit these stupid cancer sticks but 1 step at a time.
well thank God for my wife i do really love her she has made me become a veggie damn im from Texas where is the beef ????? i mean i am a 41 yr old male and to me its not a meal without MEAT :) but I have now been doing this diet for 2 days now man this sure is hard no meat :(
but i know that this will have to be done so that my body can heal
she has done alot of research on the net and has me doing supplements diet exercise and the such talk about a lifestyle change but have to do this to live longer
i know that i will be able to eat meat again after this gall bladder thing passes but i am sure glad of this fourom ( not sure of spelling)
tkx again
gipsiefyre
Lenin
11-09-2005, 09:28 AM
Simply comparing the Health Care options outside the United States sheds light.
Some facts:
In 2002, the U.S. spent $5,267 per person on health care
Canada spent $2,931
Germany spent $2,817
Britain spent $2,160.......note the similarity of the 3 with universal medical care.
For this money the U.s. gets lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than the others.
Do others wait in line for care? Yes, sometimes but so do they in the U.S. A survey of medical experience (journal of Health Affairs) of "sicker adults" in 6 countries did NOT support claims about U.S. superior service. The shorter waits for elective surgery are often FAR outweeighed by the need to forgo treatment purely because of overwhelmiing expense. Forty percent of Americans said they fail io fill prescriptions becasue of cost (I have.)The U.S. also show evidence of the highest rate of medical errors.
The biggest problem might be a philosophical one...in the United States medical care is looked upon as a privilege (and thus more available to the priviledged...like a swimming pool and a Jaguar.) In most of the civilized world it's looked upon as a right.
My common sense says that eliminating insurance companies and their multilayers of expense and profit cannot possibly do anything but cut a layer of cost. The lockout of price controls and the willingness to embrace monopoly which exists in the U.S. but not in the rest of the world can only prove costly, as it clearly does in the DOUBLED prices of drugs...and the criminalization of methods of getting them elsewhere.
It is proven time and again if there is one buyer (like the government) drug companies, hospitals and doctors will happily earn a fair but not gouging profit on their services. That's the way it works in civilized countries.
It is also clear that forcing big business to pick up medical costs is NOT a good way to keep them competitive...one of the reason that a Buick Le Sabre has to cost at several $$GRAND$$ more than a Honda Accord; G.M. is forced to pick up the medical costs for employees.
An overwhelming fact that cannot be ignored is that for nearly 50 million citizens of the United States, Health care is NOT available...good, bad or indifferent. To say that they should get better jobs is a very Marie Antoinette attitude. The fact is that from 2000-2004 the United States got 10 million more people under 65...those with employment based insurance FELL by 4.9 million in that time frame (thus a 15 million net coverage loss.) So even Marie Antioinettes with now good jobs may lose their insurance in not too great a time. But worry not, LEGISLATORS will NEVER go without socialized medicine for themselves.
THe United States will EVENTUALLY see the light, but as in most things must it be only AFTER 10's of millions are needelessly killed in the name of stupidity and greed?
Some facts:
In 2002, the U.S. spent $5,267 per person on health care
Canada spent $2,931
Germany spent $2,817
Britain spent $2,160.......note the similarity of the 3 with universal medical care.
For this money the U.s. gets lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than the others.
Do others wait in line for care? Yes, sometimes but so do they in the U.S. A survey of medical experience (journal of Health Affairs) of "sicker adults" in 6 countries did NOT support claims about U.S. superior service. The shorter waits for elective surgery are often FAR outweeighed by the need to forgo treatment purely because of overwhelmiing expense. Forty percent of Americans said they fail io fill prescriptions becasue of cost (I have.)The U.S. also show evidence of the highest rate of medical errors.
The biggest problem might be a philosophical one...in the United States medical care is looked upon as a privilege (and thus more available to the priviledged...like a swimming pool and a Jaguar.) In most of the civilized world it's looked upon as a right.
My common sense says that eliminating insurance companies and their multilayers of expense and profit cannot possibly do anything but cut a layer of cost. The lockout of price controls and the willingness to embrace monopoly which exists in the U.S. but not in the rest of the world can only prove costly, as it clearly does in the DOUBLED prices of drugs...and the criminalization of methods of getting them elsewhere.
It is proven time and again if there is one buyer (like the government) drug companies, hospitals and doctors will happily earn a fair but not gouging profit on their services. That's the way it works in civilized countries.
It is also clear that forcing big business to pick up medical costs is NOT a good way to keep them competitive...one of the reason that a Buick Le Sabre has to cost at several $$GRAND$$ more than a Honda Accord; G.M. is forced to pick up the medical costs for employees.
An overwhelming fact that cannot be ignored is that for nearly 50 million citizens of the United States, Health care is NOT available...good, bad or indifferent. To say that they should get better jobs is a very Marie Antoinette attitude. The fact is that from 2000-2004 the United States got 10 million more people under 65...those with employment based insurance FELL by 4.9 million in that time frame (thus a 15 million net coverage loss.) So even Marie Antioinettes with now good jobs may lose their insurance in not too great a time. But worry not, LEGISLATORS will NEVER go without socialized medicine for themselves.
THe United States will EVENTUALLY see the light, but as in most things must it be only AFTER 10's of millions are needelessly killed in the name of stupidity and greed?
janeslk
11-09-2005, 08:04 PM
Well, my recent reading of the state of healthcare in Canada is that it is inching toward some private insurance and clinics being offered because the public system is so bad.
Canada's high court ruled that provinces cannot outlaw private clinics based on a case it heard from a man who waited a year for a hip replacement. The court said:
Plaintiffs Jacques Chaoulli, a physician, and his patient, George Zeliotis, launched their legal challenge to the government's monopolized healthcare system after having had to wait a year for hip-replacement surgery. In finding for the plaintiffs, Canada's high court said, "The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public healthcare system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public healthcare. The evidence also demonstrates that the prohibition against private health insurance and its consequence of denying people vital healthcare result in physical and psychological suffering that meets a threshold test of seriousness."
Writing for the majority, Justice Marie Deschamps said, "Many patients on non-urgent waiting lists are in pain and cannot fully enjoy any real quality of life. The right to life and to personal inviolability is therefore affected by the waiting times."
The other articles I have read note there is a real brain drain of doctors and nurses leaving Canada to practice elsewhere.
Lenin, I don't know the answers, but I am not too sure many Americans would wait months for a MRI and a year for hip replacement surgery. Perhaps, the Belgian system would be better. I think it has a government plan as well as private insurance.
Jane
Canada's high court ruled that provinces cannot outlaw private clinics based on a case it heard from a man who waited a year for a hip replacement. The court said:
Plaintiffs Jacques Chaoulli, a physician, and his patient, George Zeliotis, launched their legal challenge to the government's monopolized healthcare system after having had to wait a year for hip-replacement surgery. In finding for the plaintiffs, Canada's high court said, "The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public healthcare system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public healthcare. The evidence also demonstrates that the prohibition against private health insurance and its consequence of denying people vital healthcare result in physical and psychological suffering that meets a threshold test of seriousness."
Writing for the majority, Justice Marie Deschamps said, "Many patients on non-urgent waiting lists are in pain and cannot fully enjoy any real quality of life. The right to life and to personal inviolability is therefore affected by the waiting times."
The other articles I have read note there is a real brain drain of doctors and nurses leaving Canada to practice elsewhere.
Lenin, I don't know the answers, but I am not too sure many Americans would wait months for a MRI and a year for hip replacement surgery. Perhaps, the Belgian system would be better. I think it has a government plan as well as private insurance.
Jane
ARIZONA73
11-09-2005, 08:55 PM
Simply comparing the Health Care options outside the United States sheds light.
Some facts:
In 2002, the U.S. spent $5,267 per person on health care
Canada spent $2,931
Germany spent $2,817
Britain spent $2,160.......note the similarity of the 3 with universal medical care.
For this money the U.s. gets lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than the others.
Do others wait in line for care? Yes, sometimes but so do they in the U.S. A survey of medical experience (journal of Health Affairs) of "sicker adults" in 6 countries did NOT support claims about U.S. superior service. The shorter waits for elective surgery are often FAR outweeighed by the need to forgo treatment purely because of overwhelmiing expense. Forty percent of Americans said they fail io fill prescriptions becasue of cost (I have.)The U.S. also show evidence of the highest rate of medical errors.
The biggest problem might be a philosophical one...in the United States medical care is looked upon as a privilege (and thus more available to the priviledged...like a swimming pool and a Jaguar.) In most of the civilized world it's looked upon as a right.
My common sense says that eliminating insurance companies and their multilayers of expense and profit cannot possibly do anything but cut a layer of cost. The lockout of price controls and the willingness to embrace monopoly which exists in the U.S. but not in the rest of the world can only prove costly, as it clearly does in the DOUBLED prices of drugs...and the criminalization of methods of getting them elsewhere.
It is proven time and again if there is one buyer (like the government) drug companies, hospitals and doctors will happily earn a fair but not gouging profit on their services. That's the way it works in civilized countries.
It is also clear that forcing big business to pick up medical costs is NOT a good way to keep them competitive...one of the reason that a Buick Le Sabre has to cost at several $$GRAND$$ more than a Honda Accord; G.M. is forced to pick up the medical costs for employees.
An overwhelming fact that cannot be ignored is that for nearly 50 million citizens of the United States, Health care is NOT available...good, bad or indifferent. To say that they should get better jobs is a very Marie Antoinette attitude. The fact is that from 2000-2004 the United States got 10 million more people under 65...those with employment based insurance FELL by 4.9 million in that time frame (thus a 15 million net coverage loss.) So even Marie Antioinettes with now good jobs may lose their insurance in not too great a time. But worry not, LEGISLATORS will NEVER go without socialized medicine for themselves.
THe United States will EVENTUALLY see the light, but as in most things must it be only AFTER 10's of millions are needelessly killed in the name of stupidity and greed?
Lenin, I couldn't agree with you more! You hit the nail squarely on the head. We have a disasterous healthcare system in this country, and the cost becomes more and more outrageous with each passing year. It's unconscionable that in a country with so much wealth that so many millions of people are without such basic necessities. I really can't think of anything more to add to what you've just said. You've summed up our current predicament perfectly! My signature clearly attests to everything you just said.
Some facts:
In 2002, the U.S. spent $5,267 per person on health care
Canada spent $2,931
Germany spent $2,817
Britain spent $2,160.......note the similarity of the 3 with universal medical care.
For this money the U.s. gets lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than the others.
Do others wait in line for care? Yes, sometimes but so do they in the U.S. A survey of medical experience (journal of Health Affairs) of "sicker adults" in 6 countries did NOT support claims about U.S. superior service. The shorter waits for elective surgery are often FAR outweeighed by the need to forgo treatment purely because of overwhelmiing expense. Forty percent of Americans said they fail io fill prescriptions becasue of cost (I have.)The U.S. also show evidence of the highest rate of medical errors.
The biggest problem might be a philosophical one...in the United States medical care is looked upon as a privilege (and thus more available to the priviledged...like a swimming pool and a Jaguar.) In most of the civilized world it's looked upon as a right.
My common sense says that eliminating insurance companies and their multilayers of expense and profit cannot possibly do anything but cut a layer of cost. The lockout of price controls and the willingness to embrace monopoly which exists in the U.S. but not in the rest of the world can only prove costly, as it clearly does in the DOUBLED prices of drugs...and the criminalization of methods of getting them elsewhere.
It is proven time and again if there is one buyer (like the government) drug companies, hospitals and doctors will happily earn a fair but not gouging profit on their services. That's the way it works in civilized countries.
It is also clear that forcing big business to pick up medical costs is NOT a good way to keep them competitive...one of the reason that a Buick Le Sabre has to cost at several $$GRAND$$ more than a Honda Accord; G.M. is forced to pick up the medical costs for employees.
An overwhelming fact that cannot be ignored is that for nearly 50 million citizens of the United States, Health care is NOT available...good, bad or indifferent. To say that they should get better jobs is a very Marie Antoinette attitude. The fact is that from 2000-2004 the United States got 10 million more people under 65...those with employment based insurance FELL by 4.9 million in that time frame (thus a 15 million net coverage loss.) So even Marie Antioinettes with now good jobs may lose their insurance in not too great a time. But worry not, LEGISLATORS will NEVER go without socialized medicine for themselves.
THe United States will EVENTUALLY see the light, but as in most things must it be only AFTER 10's of millions are needelessly killed in the name of stupidity and greed?
Lenin, I couldn't agree with you more! You hit the nail squarely on the head. We have a disasterous healthcare system in this country, and the cost becomes more and more outrageous with each passing year. It's unconscionable that in a country with so much wealth that so many millions of people are without such basic necessities. I really can't think of anything more to add to what you've just said. You've summed up our current predicament perfectly! My signature clearly attests to everything you just said.
JJ
11-09-2005, 11:35 PM
Lenin, I couldn't agree with you more! You hit the nail squarely on the head. We have a disasterous healthcare system in this country, and the cost becomes more and more outrageous with each passing year. It's unconscionable that in a country with so much wealth that so many millions of people are without such basic necessities. I really can't think of anything more to add to what you've just said. You've summed up our current predicament perfectly! My signature clearly attests to everything you just said.
Yup, Lenin summed it up perfectly, and it is unbelievable such a wealthy country is so behind on their healthcare situation, and so many folks have to go without certain things just for their meds. No reason why anyone should have to decide whether to buy groceries or get their meds, and I know some folks are in that situation, it is a TOTAL crime!!! Our government should be ashamed some folks have to live like that........ :(
Yup, Lenin summed it up perfectly, and it is unbelievable such a wealthy country is so behind on their healthcare situation, and so many folks have to go without certain things just for their meds. No reason why anyone should have to decide whether to buy groceries or get their meds, and I know some folks are in that situation, it is a TOTAL crime!!! Our government should be ashamed some folks have to live like that........ :(
HubbleRules
11-10-2005, 12:13 AM
Lenin, I couldn't agree with you more! You hit the nail squarely on the head. We have a disasterous healthcare system in this country, and the cost becomes more and more outrageous with each passing year. It's unconscionable that in a country with so much wealth that so many millions of people are without such basic necessities. I really can't think of anything more to add to what you've just said. You've summed up our current predicament perfectly! My signature clearly attests to everything you just said.
Arizona,
Nothing much is going to change until people start demanding change from their representatives.
That is why it is so important to vote, to e-mail, write or call your elected officials and express your opinion.
I e-mail my senators and congresswoman several times a year to express my concerns, and they do listen. The problem is not enough people do this, and until the incoming complaints reach a certain critical-mass, the politician will do nothing - they don't want to rock the boat most of the time - and in cases of health-care, they balance the outrage of constituents against the money they get from the lobbyists for the insurance and other industries that have a vested interest in maintaining the status-quo.
HubbleRules
:cool:
Arizona,
Nothing much is going to change until people start demanding change from their representatives.
That is why it is so important to vote, to e-mail, write or call your elected officials and express your opinion.
I e-mail my senators and congresswoman several times a year to express my concerns, and they do listen. The problem is not enough people do this, and until the incoming complaints reach a certain critical-mass, the politician will do nothing - they don't want to rock the boat most of the time - and in cases of health-care, they balance the outrage of constituents against the money they get from the lobbyists for the insurance and other industries that have a vested interest in maintaining the status-quo.
HubbleRules
:cool:
HubbleRules
11-10-2005, 12:24 AM
Lenin, I don't know the answers, but I am not too sure many Americans would wait months for a MRI and a year for hip replacement surgery. Perhaps, the Belgian system would be better. I think it has a government plan as well as private insurance.
Jane
Jane,
RIght now 46 million Americans are waiting indefinitely for the above procedures, because they have no health insurance at all and cannot afford the procedures out-of-pocket... or they are going on Medicaid and having their expenses picked-up by taxpayers in their state - which is getting so expensive that it is threatening to bankrupt some states...
In addition, health care is rapidly becoming a 'luxury' that fewer and fewer can afford. Even those that have it are facing thousands of dollars of expense in the form of premiums, co-pays, and deductibles... and the coverage is getting worse, and more expensive, each year...
The only ones who are really adequately covered today are those who work in unions, or for the government, or the rich...
Soon even the unions will lose their gold-plated coverage, as companies cannot afford the cost any longer. A prime example is GM. Like the ******, this company will most likely go bankrupt in the next 10 years unless it gets further massive give-backs from the unions on health care (and pension) costs... In fact, GM loses money producing cars today - it makes it's profits from it's financing arm - GMAC... How sick is that for a manufacturing company?
America is going in the wrong direction on several fronts today - and I think the public is just starting to wake up and realize it (according to the latest polls)... and soon they will get fed-up and demand change. I just hope we change direction before it is too late...
We need some form of national health insurance - because the current system is broke and getting worse year by year... Soon only a minority will have adequeate coverage. At that point public opinion will grow to the point that politicians cannot ignore the problem any longer. In a civilized society, health care should be a right, not a priviledge that only a few can afford.
Waiting a year for a procedure is annoying, but it's better than not even having a waiting line you can get into.
I think you are right though - the solution is somewhere between a purely government sponsored system, to one with government and some private backing...
HubbleRules
:cool:
Jane
Jane,
RIght now 46 million Americans are waiting indefinitely for the above procedures, because they have no health insurance at all and cannot afford the procedures out-of-pocket... or they are going on Medicaid and having their expenses picked-up by taxpayers in their state - which is getting so expensive that it is threatening to bankrupt some states...
In addition, health care is rapidly becoming a 'luxury' that fewer and fewer can afford. Even those that have it are facing thousands of dollars of expense in the form of premiums, co-pays, and deductibles... and the coverage is getting worse, and more expensive, each year...
The only ones who are really adequately covered today are those who work in unions, or for the government, or the rich...
Soon even the unions will lose their gold-plated coverage, as companies cannot afford the cost any longer. A prime example is GM. Like the ******, this company will most likely go bankrupt in the next 10 years unless it gets further massive give-backs from the unions on health care (and pension) costs... In fact, GM loses money producing cars today - it makes it's profits from it's financing arm - GMAC... How sick is that for a manufacturing company?
America is going in the wrong direction on several fronts today - and I think the public is just starting to wake up and realize it (according to the latest polls)... and soon they will get fed-up and demand change. I just hope we change direction before it is too late...
We need some form of national health insurance - because the current system is broke and getting worse year by year... Soon only a minority will have adequeate coverage. At that point public opinion will grow to the point that politicians cannot ignore the problem any longer. In a civilized society, health care should be a right, not a priviledge that only a few can afford.
Waiting a year for a procedure is annoying, but it's better than not even having a waiting line you can get into.
I think you are right though - the solution is somewhere between a purely government sponsored system, to one with government and some private backing...
HubbleRules
:cool:
NHone
11-10-2005, 02:56 AM
Can u explain more about "cholesterol bumps" where they are located, what they look like etc. I will be glad to do some research for you. Do you have any liver problems, how about thyroid, metabolism? What medications are you on?
janeslk
11-10-2005, 11:38 AM
HubbleRules says:
RIght now 46 million Americans are waiting indefinitely for the above procedures, because they have no health insurance at all and cannot afford the procedures out-of-pocket... or they are going on Medicaid and having their expenses picked-up by taxpayers in their state - which is getting so expensive that it is threatening to bankrupt some states...
In addition, health care is rapidly becoming a 'luxury' that fewer and fewer can afford. Even those that have it are facing thousands of dollars of expense in the form of premiums, co-pays, and deductibles... and the coverage is getting worse, and more expensive, each year..."
My question is why is this occurring? My mother said it cost $50 for her one week-stay in the hospital when I was born in 1951. What happened to change it? Most people point to the government becoming involved in healthcare in the 1960's. I just don't have the faith that you do that a single-payer government system would be less expensive in the long run and provide the type of health we are used to. If it is so great why do you see Canada and Britain moving toward some privatization?
I am not arguing against the system that many of you support I am only saying I want the option to refuse it and refuse to pay for it. I want the option of staying in the private insurance sector and choosing my doctor as well as having timely procedures as warranted. BTW, my sister, age 60, is one of those uninsured by choice. She can afford health insurance, but chooses not buy it.
Medicare, as we know it, is going broke, and the Medicaid systems are in trouble. Both are run by government and politicians. I guess my question iis why would it be any better to have everyone in a government system?
Jane
RIght now 46 million Americans are waiting indefinitely for the above procedures, because they have no health insurance at all and cannot afford the procedures out-of-pocket... or they are going on Medicaid and having their expenses picked-up by taxpayers in their state - which is getting so expensive that it is threatening to bankrupt some states...
In addition, health care is rapidly becoming a 'luxury' that fewer and fewer can afford. Even those that have it are facing thousands of dollars of expense in the form of premiums, co-pays, and deductibles... and the coverage is getting worse, and more expensive, each year..."
My question is why is this occurring? My mother said it cost $50 for her one week-stay in the hospital when I was born in 1951. What happened to change it? Most people point to the government becoming involved in healthcare in the 1960's. I just don't have the faith that you do that a single-payer government system would be less expensive in the long run and provide the type of health we are used to. If it is so great why do you see Canada and Britain moving toward some privatization?
I am not arguing against the system that many of you support I am only saying I want the option to refuse it and refuse to pay for it. I want the option of staying in the private insurance sector and choosing my doctor as well as having timely procedures as warranted. BTW, my sister, age 60, is one of those uninsured by choice. She can afford health insurance, but chooses not buy it.
Medicare, as we know it, is going broke, and the Medicaid systems are in trouble. Both are run by government and politicians. I guess my question iis why would it be any better to have everyone in a government system?
Jane
starsofglass
11-10-2005, 12:00 PM
Britain is a lousy example: it has soooo many problems, bad healthcare, etc.
Belgium is not perfect, but its healthcare system is very good and funded by taxes and the government. I can choose the doctor I want, I pay low prices, I don't have to wait long for procedures, exams, etc. This system is based on solidarity, in which I firmly believe.
I pay 5 euros to go to an ordinary doctor, 10 euros for most specialists. From what I hear, medicine is cheaper than for example the States.
I think the problem is not in the system, but in how it is run by some people.
I believe in solidarity, not in survival of the fittest/richest.
Belgium is not perfect, but its healthcare system is very good and funded by taxes and the government. I can choose the doctor I want, I pay low prices, I don't have to wait long for procedures, exams, etc. This system is based on solidarity, in which I firmly believe.
I pay 5 euros to go to an ordinary doctor, 10 euros for most specialists. From what I hear, medicine is cheaper than for example the States.
I think the problem is not in the system, but in how it is run by some people.
I believe in solidarity, not in survival of the fittest/richest.
Moxie75
11-10-2005, 12:30 PM
It's a disgrace how we are screwed in more ways than one by our lovely government. Thankfully I changed jobs in July and am now working for an employee owned co and we pay nothing out of our pockets for healthcare except a small co pay for visits. There is no reason why all of us cannot have this..Lisa
Lenin
11-10-2005, 01:28 PM
Medicare and medicaid are going broke because the current administraition are behaving criminally in stealing the money from the funds to hand to the very richest as tax reductions.
I and a few of my friends (all honest)could make the Medicare system run very well on the money it takes in, however I woldn't have enough left for world domination to boot, that's expensive.
When George Bush cries about how much the poor and elderly cost he should staunch his tears and put back the money he stole from them.
If fairness was a goal, the United States would have the best health care system imaginable. Instead greed and stealth are the modi opperendi and thus we have the hideous mess we have.
Jane,
I have several Canadian friends who wouuld LYNCH any Prime Minister who proposed replacing the Canadian health care system with "privitization!" To a MAN they are all very happy with the system they have and look at disbelief at their dreadful system to their South.
AND IT'S CHEAPER to have good care...that's the truly horrible part!
For the Canadian with the bad hip, if he were a U.S. citizen in the 50 million uninsured, he'd have to wait until he was sealed in his casket for any relief from the pain...one year would be a walk in the park comparatively! In the U.S. he'd never be able to affford the MRI even to get a DIAGNOSIS, much less the $50,000 hip replacement.
I and a few of my friends (all honest)could make the Medicare system run very well on the money it takes in, however I woldn't have enough left for world domination to boot, that's expensive.
When George Bush cries about how much the poor and elderly cost he should staunch his tears and put back the money he stole from them.
If fairness was a goal, the United States would have the best health care system imaginable. Instead greed and stealth are the modi opperendi and thus we have the hideous mess we have.
Jane,
I have several Canadian friends who wouuld LYNCH any Prime Minister who proposed replacing the Canadian health care system with "privitization!" To a MAN they are all very happy with the system they have and look at disbelief at their dreadful system to their South.
AND IT'S CHEAPER to have good care...that's the truly horrible part!
For the Canadian with the bad hip, if he were a U.S. citizen in the 50 million uninsured, he'd have to wait until he was sealed in his casket for any relief from the pain...one year would be a walk in the park comparatively! In the U.S. he'd never be able to affford the MRI even to get a DIAGNOSIS, much less the $50,000 hip replacement.
liverock
11-10-2005, 01:42 PM
A few facts from a user of the health service in England.
The UK National Health Service is not being privatised even partly, but is proposing to use the private sector to build and run some hospitals as part of the NHS. In certain parts of the country when waiting lists get to long the NHS will send patients to a private hospital and pick up the costs. Any move to privatise the NHS would mean whatever government that was in power losing office pretty quickly.
The National Health Insurance contribution that people make only pays for about 10% of the cost of the health service, the rest comes from general taxation. Retired people do not pay any Health Insurance.
Most people can see a GP for non urgent conditions within 2 days, and a hospital consultant within 6 weeks, although you may have to wait for an operation anything up to 18 months if its non urgent. All people over 60 get free drugs, others pay about $6 per prescription.
Dentistry under the NHS is not so hot, with more and more dentists leaving to go private over a bust up with the government over charges for their services, leaving many people unable to find a NHS dentist.
The private sector in the UK is not as dear as in the US, with insurance companies keeping costs down by agreeing fixed price deals with hospitals for each different type of treatment. If hospitals dont like this they get kicked off the insurers list and dont get any customers from that insurer.
Many people are not joining private schemes but instead paying for operations themselves, and going to third world countries like India for operations, such as hip replacements which cost about 60% of the UK cost including accomodation and flights. According to reports the standards of skill and care are excellent.
The UK National Health Service is not being privatised even partly, but is proposing to use the private sector to build and run some hospitals as part of the NHS. In certain parts of the country when waiting lists get to long the NHS will send patients to a private hospital and pick up the costs. Any move to privatise the NHS would mean whatever government that was in power losing office pretty quickly.
The National Health Insurance contribution that people make only pays for about 10% of the cost of the health service, the rest comes from general taxation. Retired people do not pay any Health Insurance.
Most people can see a GP for non urgent conditions within 2 days, and a hospital consultant within 6 weeks, although you may have to wait for an operation anything up to 18 months if its non urgent. All people over 60 get free drugs, others pay about $6 per prescription.
Dentistry under the NHS is not so hot, with more and more dentists leaving to go private over a bust up with the government over charges for their services, leaving many people unable to find a NHS dentist.
The private sector in the UK is not as dear as in the US, with insurance companies keeping costs down by agreeing fixed price deals with hospitals for each different type of treatment. If hospitals dont like this they get kicked off the insurers list and dont get any customers from that insurer.
Many people are not joining private schemes but instead paying for operations themselves, and going to third world countries like India for operations, such as hip replacements which cost about 60% of the UK cost including accomodation and flights. According to reports the standards of skill and care are excellent.
ARIZONA73
11-10-2005, 07:16 PM
Medicare and medicaid are going broke because the current administraition are behaving criminally in stealing the money from the funds to hand to the very richest as tax reductions.
I and a few of my friends (all honest)could make the Medicare system run very well on the money it takes in, however I woldn't have enough left for world domination to boot, that's expensive.
You cannot solely lay the blame on the current administration for a healthcare crises which has been growing progressively worse over the last several decades. I have been hearing people complaining about these problems for as long as I can remember. Of course, every administration has talked about the worsening healthcare crisis, but not one of them has ever taken any meaningful steps to deal with the problem. In fact, I distinctly remember that right after Bill Clinton was elected president, it was Hilary Clinton who vowed that her first priority would be to fix the healthcare problem in this country. Well, so much for that.
Quite frankly, I don't know what the solution is. Is it socialized medicine? Would the majority of people be content with that? I think that no matter what alternative is proposed, there are always going to be a lot of people bitching about it. My feeling is that all Americans should be entitled to the same form of healthcare coverage that our elected representatives enjoy. Maybe if we finally came to our senses and started deporting the millions of people who are in this country illegally, and locking up our borders, then maybe we would at least be able to make a start in the right direction. These people are a huge drain on our healthcare system, and unless this problem is addressed, the current problems will only get worse. That much I can promise you.
I and a few of my friends (all honest)could make the Medicare system run very well on the money it takes in, however I woldn't have enough left for world domination to boot, that's expensive.
You cannot solely lay the blame on the current administration for a healthcare crises which has been growing progressively worse over the last several decades. I have been hearing people complaining about these problems for as long as I can remember. Of course, every administration has talked about the worsening healthcare crisis, but not one of them has ever taken any meaningful steps to deal with the problem. In fact, I distinctly remember that right after Bill Clinton was elected president, it was Hilary Clinton who vowed that her first priority would be to fix the healthcare problem in this country. Well, so much for that.
Quite frankly, I don't know what the solution is. Is it socialized medicine? Would the majority of people be content with that? I think that no matter what alternative is proposed, there are always going to be a lot of people bitching about it. My feeling is that all Americans should be entitled to the same form of healthcare coverage that our elected representatives enjoy. Maybe if we finally came to our senses and started deporting the millions of people who are in this country illegally, and locking up our borders, then maybe we would at least be able to make a start in the right direction. These people are a huge drain on our healthcare system, and unless this problem is addressed, the current problems will only get worse. That much I can promise you.
HubbleRules
11-11-2005, 02:07 AM
HubbleRules says:
I just don't have the faith that you do that a single-payer government system would be less expensive in the long run and provide the type of health we are used to. If it is so great why do you see Canada and Britain moving toward some privatization?
I am not arguing against the system that many of you support I am only saying I want the option to refuse it and refuse to pay for it. I want the option of staying in the private insurance sector and choosing my doctor as well as having timely procedures as warranted. BTW, my sister, age 60, is one of those uninsured by choice. She can afford health insurance, but chooses not buy it.
Medicare, as we know it, is going broke, and the Medicaid systems are in trouble. Both are run by government and politicians. I guess my question iis why would it be any better to have everyone in a government system?
Jane
Jane,
I think that a better solution can be found by looking at some of the examples of national health care in the world, picking one that works well, and trying that here - perhaps with modifications to address the weak-points of that system. More and more people in this country are losing their life savings to medical emergencies. And, thanks to the Republican controlled congress, the newly enacted bankruptcy laws means that many (if not most) of these people will not be able to get relief from these huge health care costs via the bankruptcy laws. Some will be forced to chose between bankruptcy or death when it comes to life-saving surgery. The costs are that huge. My daughter was in a car accident 3 years ago, and was in ICU for 2 1/2 days... Her bill for that time was over $40,000.00 - luckily picked up by insurance. Costs are even worse now. The point is - a one week stay in a hospital can easily wipe-out most american's net-worth if they have no insurance.
The current U.S. system is fine for the ever-shrinking group (myself included) that have good health coverage - but it is an absolute disaster for the huge group of uninsured and the under-insured. In the richest country in the world, I think that is a sin.
The theory about a single-payer system being more cost effective is that claim processing would be streamlined (currently it is split across thousands of insurance companies, all having their own separate claim processing departments). Even more importantly, a single-payer would be much more powerful in negotiating rate reductions with hospitals and doctors and pharmaceuticals.
It always stupifies me why congress refuses to allow medicare to negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs with the pharmaceuticals. I can't prove it, but I would bet a lot that money is changing hands under the table, and that the pharmas have bought political influence via campaign contributions to our elected officials. There is no other rational explanation why congress would oppose legislation that is so clearly to the benefit of the public, and which is clearly wanted by the vast majority of Americans.
So, I think that in order for us to get national health care (which here would most likely be a combination of government and private funded health care), that we need to vote out-of-office those politicians that are opposing it. Today, that opposition is mostly from the Republicans. I say this being a former life-long Republican - one who has progressively become totally disillusioned by that party.
And Arizona, I completely agree with you about illegal immigration being a HUGE factor in out-of-control cost-increases in Medicaid. Many states will be facing bankruptcy, huge tax increases, or huge cuts in other discretionary spending to fund for the federal govt mandated Medicaid burden that is exploding with so many illegals using it. I also blame the national government for that - because they have done absolutely nothing to curb illegal immigration. In fact, President Bush's guest-worker proposal led to a huge increase in illegal border crossings. On this point I blame both parties. The Republicans want cheap labor - and it is becoming a race-to-the bottom for workers wages and benefits with globalization and free-trade zones and illegal immigration. The Democrats want a larger voting block - and they theorize that the vast majority of illegals will vote Democratic.
Man, what a mess....
HubbleRules
:cool:
I just don't have the faith that you do that a single-payer government system would be less expensive in the long run and provide the type of health we are used to. If it is so great why do you see Canada and Britain moving toward some privatization?
I am not arguing against the system that many of you support I am only saying I want the option to refuse it and refuse to pay for it. I want the option of staying in the private insurance sector and choosing my doctor as well as having timely procedures as warranted. BTW, my sister, age 60, is one of those uninsured by choice. She can afford health insurance, but chooses not buy it.
Medicare, as we know it, is going broke, and the Medicaid systems are in trouble. Both are run by government and politicians. I guess my question iis why would it be any better to have everyone in a government system?
Jane
Jane,
I think that a better solution can be found by looking at some of the examples of national health care in the world, picking one that works well, and trying that here - perhaps with modifications to address the weak-points of that system. More and more people in this country are losing their life savings to medical emergencies. And, thanks to the Republican controlled congress, the newly enacted bankruptcy laws means that many (if not most) of these people will not be able to get relief from these huge health care costs via the bankruptcy laws. Some will be forced to chose between bankruptcy or death when it comes to life-saving surgery. The costs are that huge. My daughter was in a car accident 3 years ago, and was in ICU for 2 1/2 days... Her bill for that time was over $40,000.00 - luckily picked up by insurance. Costs are even worse now. The point is - a one week stay in a hospital can easily wipe-out most american's net-worth if they have no insurance.
The current U.S. system is fine for the ever-shrinking group (myself included) that have good health coverage - but it is an absolute disaster for the huge group of uninsured and the under-insured. In the richest country in the world, I think that is a sin.
The theory about a single-payer system being more cost effective is that claim processing would be streamlined (currently it is split across thousands of insurance companies, all having their own separate claim processing departments). Even more importantly, a single-payer would be much more powerful in negotiating rate reductions with hospitals and doctors and pharmaceuticals.
It always stupifies me why congress refuses to allow medicare to negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs with the pharmaceuticals. I can't prove it, but I would bet a lot that money is changing hands under the table, and that the pharmas have bought political influence via campaign contributions to our elected officials. There is no other rational explanation why congress would oppose legislation that is so clearly to the benefit of the public, and which is clearly wanted by the vast majority of Americans.
So, I think that in order for us to get national health care (which here would most likely be a combination of government and private funded health care), that we need to vote out-of-office those politicians that are opposing it. Today, that opposition is mostly from the Republicans. I say this being a former life-long Republican - one who has progressively become totally disillusioned by that party.
And Arizona, I completely agree with you about illegal immigration being a HUGE factor in out-of-control cost-increases in Medicaid. Many states will be facing bankruptcy, huge tax increases, or huge cuts in other discretionary spending to fund for the federal govt mandated Medicaid burden that is exploding with so many illegals using it. I also blame the national government for that - because they have done absolutely nothing to curb illegal immigration. In fact, President Bush's guest-worker proposal led to a huge increase in illegal border crossings. On this point I blame both parties. The Republicans want cheap labor - and it is becoming a race-to-the bottom for workers wages and benefits with globalization and free-trade zones and illegal immigration. The Democrats want a larger voting block - and they theorize that the vast majority of illegals will vote Democratic.
Man, what a mess....
HubbleRules
:cool:
Lenin
11-15-2005, 12:08 PM
On Bill and Hillary Clinton...they TRIED. If they, or TRUMAN, or LYNDON JOHNSON had dictatorial power, the United States would have a single payer universal medical care system covering EVERY resident from birth to death.
If George Bush or Ronald Reagan had the same powers, we'd have NO Medicare, No Medicaid, no Social Security system and certainly no universal care.
To their everlasting shame the DEMOCRAT House of Representatives sold out to Big Pharma and the AMA and destroyed the Clinton plan...for this I'll never forgive Dick Gephard (Speaker of the House at the time.)
Hillary sweated BULLETS over this...why do you think she's despised so by the rich right wing? Because her husband had an AFFAIR? No, because they view her as a possible Eva Peron...Santa Evita!
Does anyone think Clinton was impeached because of a few BJ's? Or rather because of his attempt to introduce universal health coverage, or as the right wing would call it, COMMUNISM!
liverock,
Thank you for that excellent summary of the system in the UK...the difference made me sad.
In the United States even retitrees must spend hundreds a month for their health care even under Medicare...and the country even has the affrontery to tax Social Security benefits, while trying to eliminate the estate tax...for real!
If George Bush or Ronald Reagan had the same powers, we'd have NO Medicare, No Medicaid, no Social Security system and certainly no universal care.
To their everlasting shame the DEMOCRAT House of Representatives sold out to Big Pharma and the AMA and destroyed the Clinton plan...for this I'll never forgive Dick Gephard (Speaker of the House at the time.)
Hillary sweated BULLETS over this...why do you think she's despised so by the rich right wing? Because her husband had an AFFAIR? No, because they view her as a possible Eva Peron...Santa Evita!
Does anyone think Clinton was impeached because of a few BJ's? Or rather because of his attempt to introduce universal health coverage, or as the right wing would call it, COMMUNISM!
liverock,
Thank you for that excellent summary of the system in the UK...the difference made me sad.
In the United States even retitrees must spend hundreds a month for their health care even under Medicare...and the country even has the affrontery to tax Social Security benefits, while trying to eliminate the estate tax...for real!
ARIZONA73
11-15-2005, 07:31 PM
On Bill and Hillary Clinton...they TRIED. If they, or TRUMAN, or LYNDON JOHNSON had dictatorial power, the United States would have a single payer universal medical care system covering EVERY resident from birth to death.
Bill and Hilary Clinton tried? Funny, but I don't quite see it that way, nor do I remember hearing much of anything from either of them regarding any kind of comprehensible healthcare plan. Apparently they haven't tried hard enough.
Sure, it's easy to get anything done if you have the powers of a dictator. I could fix a lot of things too if I was a dictator. In fact, I often fantasize about all of the things that I would do if I had such powers, from providing quality healthcare to all "American citizens", to locking up our borders, deporting all illegal aliens, suspending the writ of habeas corpus, and declaring a moratorium on all immigration.
Anyway, at least Bush succceeded in incorporating some prescription drug coverage into the medicare plan. That's more than Clinton ever did. It may not be perfect, but it's at least a start. But like I said, no matter what anyone proposes, a lot of people are going to ***** about it for one reason or another. And even if we adopted socialized healthcare, a lot of people would ***** about that too, because for a lot of people who already have a good healthcare plan, a system like that may not be very satisfactory.
Bill and Hilary Clinton tried? Funny, but I don't quite see it that way, nor do I remember hearing much of anything from either of them regarding any kind of comprehensible healthcare plan. Apparently they haven't tried hard enough.
Sure, it's easy to get anything done if you have the powers of a dictator. I could fix a lot of things too if I was a dictator. In fact, I often fantasize about all of the things that I would do if I had such powers, from providing quality healthcare to all "American citizens", to locking up our borders, deporting all illegal aliens, suspending the writ of habeas corpus, and declaring a moratorium on all immigration.
Anyway, at least Bush succceeded in incorporating some prescription drug coverage into the medicare plan. That's more than Clinton ever did. It may not be perfect, but it's at least a start. But like I said, no matter what anyone proposes, a lot of people are going to ***** about it for one reason or another. And even if we adopted socialized healthcare, a lot of people would ***** about that too, because for a lot of people who already have a good healthcare plan, a system like that may not be very satisfactory.
gardeninggal
11-15-2005, 09:03 PM
WOW ! What a discussion, I guess there isn't much I could add to that. My husband and I spent time today at a meeting designed to make the new Medicare RX plan easier to understand. I personally think some government person with the ability to write down a simple explanation would be worth millions. These people desperate to show their great intelligence can not write for the common man and it has the whole country in an uproar. People think that Medicare is providing the RX insurance and the truth is that it will be the companies that we are already dealing with that will write up RX policies. We live in Minnesota and our company (I doubt that I can name it Here) but anyway our company provides excelent coverage at a low rate. We will pay $110.00 a month each for our basic coverage and there is no co-pay and they will provide the Part D Rider, which is the new RX Plan that all the hoopla is about and they will charge us $26.50 a month. That is $136.50 a month,each, we will pay a small co-pay on the medicines but none on office calls. We were paying $149.00 a month or $298.00 for both of us and since my husband fell out of a tree and shattered his knee cap (don't ask :eek: ) and had quite the surgery to fix it and just about 8 weeks ago had hernia surgery and we have not had to pay anything I'd say it is a good company. I say all this to encourage any of you seniors to go to the meeting and to take heart you will be able to understand it inspite of what the media is saying. :wave: