Friday, July 10, 2009

Go Ahead and Die



Via Open Left, which also has an interesting comparison between the experiences of a cancer patient in America versus one in France.

And speaking of France, I would refer the reader to Mike Mathias who also teaches us a lesson from the French regarding health care.

10 comments:

  1. Hmm, so you would rather have the government say you can die instead of the private insurance, like they do in Great Britian and Canada?
    Bottom line, the government cannot take over health coverage or it will ruin this country. The U.S. government is not capable of making a program work without fraud or mismanagement.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dan,

    The current system is already overwhelmed with fraud and mismanagement.

    And for every example of Canada, Great Britian or any other country, there is at least one example in this country.

    So if things are the same at best, or better if you read the cited sites in a nationalized system, why not go with the least expensive?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dan, it's not only that people do die in this country because of lack of health insurance or worse, having heath insurance and the company weaseling out of covering procedures.

    It is also that people both die, and go broke in the process. Something that does not happen in these other countries.

    Besides, these other countries are not being "ruined" by their health care systems. Quite the opposite. And quite the opposite when it comes their corporate economic health as they do not have to deal with insurance.

    By the way, you seem to be so concerned about business. Which company would be more efficient. One where the management is forever having to dither around with their insurance company or one that can focus on their core competencies.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Hmm, so you would rather have the government say you can die instead of the private insurance, like they do in Canada?"

    Dan = McIlheran?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Another thing: for the foreseeable future, there's no chance that government is going to "take over" health care in this country. Right now it seems that a public option, in addition to private insurance, is the best we're going to get. And the public option is facing serious opposition, even from many Democrats (comprised almost totally by the damned Blue Dogs), on the grounds that a public option would kill private insurance.

    Conservatives need to make up their minds about this. Is the government so incompetent that its taking over health care would "ruin the country" or is it so ruthlessly efficient that its presence in the health care field would absolutely kill the supposedly infallible marketplace?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Even now, the government run health care, i.e. Medicare and Medicaid is administered by private companies contracted to the government, so the whining is rather silly.

    The insurance companies would still make their money. They just wouldn't be allowed to gouge.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well, the government running health care has been pretty poor. Look at the quality of healthcare Native Americans get. (http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=23192)
    Medicare and Medicade- that is running deficits and poorly reimburses medical providers to the point that the providers are stop taking new medicare patients. Have you ever known someone who needs dental care and is on the federal insurance? It is pathetic.
    Medical care for veterans through the VA is just a little bit bit better.
    The list can go onand on.
    So, this is what will happen if the U.S. government takes over health care- is that what you want-medicore, at best, health care?
    Certainly, health care can be improved, but it doesn't need a drastic overhaul.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The same can be said about the current system, and it is much, much more expensive. That is why more and more people are going w/out health care, and when they need medical attention, that drives the costs up.

    Also, is it the reimbursement is so low, or the medical fees are so outrageously high?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Also, is it the reimbursement is so low, or the medical fees are so outrageously high?"
    I think, having worked in the medical field (not as a professional, but still observant)that is a combination of both, but more so, the problem is with reimbursement the government gives. Often, I have seen articles and heard professionals, not just doctors, complain about that they are not reimbursed for their expenses and the doctors and other professionals lose money treating Medicare and Medicade patients.
    However, there is medical insurance available at all different rates- including catastrophic care which is cheap to the more expensive insurance. Part of the problem is that government requires so much different coverage that it drives up costs.
    But I guess, my main arguement about health care comes down to the Amish. They make little money and they refuse to health insurance or social security. They don't contribute to SS. But yet, they pay for their medical costs. They still go to the doctor, dentist, eye doctor, have surgeries, go to the ER and yet they don't complain. They don't lose their farms and they pay their bills. I am not saying we should live like the Amish, but they have shown that those who don't have medical insurance still receive medical care, pay their bills and live long lives.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I remember that after my mom died, the hospital sent an invoice to my dad. They were charging her $10/day for a privacy curtain. They never washed it, they never replaced it, and they never gave it to us. Why would they charge that much for something like a curtain, when it was part of the room already?

    ReplyDelete