Posted on 03/17/2010 5:39:44 PM PDT by raptor22
President Obama believes in government by anecdote. In a nation of 300 million souls, some people will always have some problems. There are horror stories involving medical care in every country, particularly in Canada, Britain and other nations with socialized medical systems. The question isn't whether some bad things happen; the question about a given system should center on the rate at which bad things occur. By that measure, the American medical system does extremely well.
Mr. Obama's use of Natoma Canfield during his Monday talk in Ohio is a good example. The president spent almost a third of his lecture discussing her case, and he claims he's been talking about her in meetings with insurance companies. Ms. Canfield is a self-employed cleaning lady who dropped her $500-per-month insurance plan because she felt she couldn't afford the insurance premiums, only to discover she suffered from leukemia.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
$500-per-month insurance plan because she felt she couldn’t afford the insurance premiums, only to discover she suffered from leukemia.
So she can’t afford 500 and can’t afford this either so she is no worse off correct?
Heartless I know, but the taxpayers are paying for her care which will reach into the hundreds of thousands. Adding a layer of burocracy with Obamacare will only cost the taxpayers more, and the poor lady in question may not get her treatment at all. Because it will be deemed “too expensive”.She will get the bare minimum.
Great point.
Current system-suffer the embarrassment of declaring yourself indigent to the hospital, get care.
Obamacare-lifetime of higher taxes and premiums, initial care provided if resources are available, then denied when she turns 60 or 65 or so. Patient not allowed to sue the bureaucracy.
Just a open question from someone living in europe.
(I usually don´t comment on US domestic issues because
it´s none of my buisiness. But after reading over and over
again about “healthcare” on FR im just interessted).
Do you think the current system is just OK and it should
just contine like that? Or do you think something has to change (and just don´t like the way how Obama wants to change it?).
I´m just interessted.
greetings
I think that most Americans like their plans, but don't like the cost. We believe the cost is so high because of the government's involvement in so much of the private healthcare system. So, we'd like changes, but it would involve getting the government out of it, not more involved with it.
Obamacare will double my insurance premiums and force me to drop my insurance.
Thanks a lot, Barry.
There are some issues with our system. No one denies that. One of the biggest is that our society is very litigious, ready to sue at the drop of a hat, and many lawyers are out there looking for clients. In malpractice cases, the doctor may have done everything correctly, but if the outcome was not optimal, the patient can sue and walk away with millions. This reality adds both directly and indirect to everyone’s healthcare costs—indirectly, because doctors must order tests that they wouldn’t ordinarily order, just so they can show they did everything possible should they get sued. Although doctors can and do win most malpractice cases, there is no disincentive to people filing lawsuits against them. Therefore, much of the cost of malpractice insurance isn’t even to pay off bloated settlements; it’s to pay court costs for frivolous lawsuits.
Malpractice is only one issue, but it helps to illustrate that what we want and need are real solutions, not a government takeover of the whole healthcare industry.
We know that we don’t want the government taking over. The simplest reason is that it’s unconstitutional. The more complex reason is that we’ve all read about some of the horrors of socialized medicine—especially in Britain, where it’s been around for a long time—and some of us have personal knowledge of socialized medicine.
The father of one of my friends traveled from England to visit her and suffered a stroke. He was given the appropriate care in a hospital in Seattle, and was deemed well enough to travel after about a month. Back in England, he wasn’t put into any kind of special care ward at all—he was just shoved into a general ward. And he died within two weeks of his return home. Had he remained here, there is no doubt he would have continued recovering, because he wouldn’t have been shoved into a lower level ward just to save money; he would have been kept at the appropriate care level.
Well thanks for the answer. The problem here is (in europe)
that the american system is usually portrayed (if mentioned) as if it would totally suck in the media.
So there for it´s hard to get an objective impression on it.
btw. not the generall quality of the existing health care is criticized. But you only allways hear about millions of
working americans who are not able to afford it.
greetings
thanks for this very interesting post!
It looks like both “sides” of the pond tend to pick
out the worst things of the current systems to generaly portray the
other “side” as worst thing that could ever happen to mankind. Yes it looks like frivolous law suits are a big problem for the US system. On the other side people sue
doctors here too (but you will never get as much money even if you win like in the US). But there for the interesst to “make money” because of this isn´t this high.(But i guess
this is more a “legal problem” and cannot be “blamed” direct on the healthcare system even as you say it affects it )
On the other side of course “our” system has its fair share of flaws too. It would just be a incredible lie to say
that everything is perfect about the medical system in good old “Europe” because it´s not. We have people who are uninsured too (but not in this high % the US has). But i guess the main “problem” is the US and the “european” system differ in an “mostly ignored” generall point. The European system
is aimed to give as much persons as possible access to basic health care. It looks like the US system is aimed to give the people who can pay for it the best possible health care available. So both systems do have its winners and losers. Hard to tell which one is better. It looks like they just differ too much to compare.
greetings
The father of one of my friends traveled from England to visit her and suffered a stroke. He was given the appropriate care in a hospital in Seattle, and was deemed well enough to travel after about a month. Back in England, he wasn’t put into any kind of special care ward at all—he was just shoved into a general ward. And he died within two weeks of his return home. Had he remained here, there is no doubt he would have continued recovering, because he wouldn’t have been shoved into a lower level ward just to save money; he would have been kept at the appropriate care level.
And, I have an important question (completely related.)
If the Congress and our (alleged) president are not listening to the majority of the people about the pending healcare confiscation bill...
Then why would anyone believe that they (or anyone in government) listen to any of us when we have horror stories of our own, after passage of the bill.?
.
Oddly enough Canadian leaders, and even a few European leaders, come to the U.S. for crucial treatments (including Cancer treatment).
Have you ever known anyone to go to Canada for medical care?
Everybody will fill the pinch, except for trial lawyers.
Maybe that’s what allows other countries to keep going with socialized care. In most other countries “loser pays”, so lawyers take their clients VERY selectively. I remember being in England and they had a talk show about the difference in UK care versus US. One man spoke about how a physician in the UK can stop by an accident and render aid without worrying about being sued. In the US, the doctor had better just drive by.
Maybe that’s what allows other countries to keep going with socialized care. In most other countries “loser pays”, so lawyers take their clients VERY selectively. I remember being in England and they had a talk show about the difference in UK care versus US. One man spoke about how a physician in the UK can stop by an accident and render aid without worrying about being sued. In the US, the doctor had better just drive by.
There is a lot of charity in this country and also, emergency rooms are not allowed to refuse treatment to anyone. I have a relative who had colon cancer and she required a very expensive surgery. When the president of the hospital was told about her situation (out of work for a very long time because of the cancer), he sent word to her that she wouldn't have to pay a penny. She was in tears when she found out about this because she was a wreck worrying about how she was going to pay for it. But, my reaction (privately) was that she was so much more grateful for what she got because she knew that someone was doing it for her voluntarily. When people *expect* others to pay for their health care, they aren't grateful. They just expect it and when they don't get it, they become angry.
The other thing you should know is that the number of people without health insurance thrown around in the media over overinflated. It's far less than what you hear.
Actually, yes. I know a couple who each went to Canada to get LASIK surgery. And they did it because it cost less there. I don't know if that qualifies as medical care, though. I seriously doubt these people (who are very conservative) would go to Canada for anything else.
Heard that the lady who lives in Ohio is getting help from the clinic in question.
How dare PBO uses people who are very valunable.
What is PBO?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.