# Universal health care peaking round the corner again



## Melbourne MICA (Mar 9, 2009)

Information from a major US health study released this week - the number 3 leading cause of death in the US today after heart disease and cancer?????

Lack of private health insurance. 

I kid you not. 

(I will try and find the details of the study - I heard this info from an ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission) radio report this morning - missed where the study was done). One anecdote provided was a woman who was diagnosed with Leukaemia and phoned to arrange the commencement of her treatment programme. She was told (before any other information was given) to bring a cheque for $45,000 otherwise she would not be treated. 

Another reported "fact" was the average annual private health insurance premium for Joe Citizen in the US is...........$14,000!!!!!! Since the average mortgage takes about 1/3 of your annual income, this health bill must be at least another  1/3 - sound about right?? 

The point made about these facts was the study revealed that as much harm is being done to those who under insure as to those who have none at all.   

Also reported was the fact that many of the leading critics and opponents of Hillary Clintons Universal Health Care Bill shot down in the mid 1990's are now apparently prepared to support a new one by Obama.

Universal health care may be back on the agenda again. I would love to hear some real stories from you US EMS guys rather thean the filtered crap you get through the media.

And no - it is not to trumpet how wonderful health systems are elsewhere including here in Aussie land.

I just want to know from the best people to ask - ambos. You see it all and work smack bang in the middle of the system. Not trying to stir up a fuss just interested - I think this health care battle is going to be incredibly important for everyone as I said in another post from before Christmas on the same subject.

Cheers guys

MM

PS Unless my memory fails me, the info came form Obamas working group on helath care and this was some of its findings. I appreciate some might see some political tarring of these results from Obamas side - however it doesn't seem to me that there is anything to be gained politically for him by dishing out more doctored (pardon the word play) doom and gloom.


----------



## PapaBear434 (Mar 9, 2009)

I'm all for a universal health care service.  It's time we as Americans join the rest of the civilized world and cover the people who need it most.  We should be ashamed that a middle class family that has done everything right and paid all their bills on time and invested like they were told they should can completely be wiped out for life if someone has the audacity to get sick.  Even if you HAVE coverage, half the time the insurance company will try to deny stuff like chemotherapy because they deem it "experimental."  

Come on, America.  Just because other countries do it doesn't mean we shouldn't or that it's bad.  Some things France does is actually GOOD and we could learn from them.


----------



## Ridryder911 (Mar 9, 2009)

I'm all for it, as soon as the countries that owe us money pay it back we will have enough to pay for it. 

Again, what bullish crap. Sorry, but as of yet I have not seen anyone  not receive direct emergency care because of non-payment. Now, they may not be able to recieve the additonal care, that I will not debate. 

Also, what credible source did those numbers come from? From what I remember, Trauma is the fourth leading cause of death; definitely not lack of insurance. 

Do we have problems? You bet! Now, let's get thing in proportion; stop giving foreign aid (yeah, that means to France and others that have Socialized medicine) and start placing money back into our own pot and start taking care of ourselves. Let's quit proctecting countries such South Korea and yes even Germany and again, worry about ourselves. 

Strangely, I remember reading the billions of dollars we had spent on countries after wartime events to "re-build" them. Ironically, we never see aid in money when we have a disaster. How many countries offerred financial aid or even support when we had disaster or attacks? 

Socialized medicine maybe great for some, yet again someone has to pay for it. It does not "magically" appear. One way or another the monies has to come from someone and that is from the working middle class. 

No thanks, I'm taxed enough. 

R/r 911


----------



## Sasha (Mar 9, 2009)

> . Sorry, but as of yet I have not seen anyone not receive direct emergency care because of non-payment.



People need more than direct emergency care, they need preventitve care and care for things BEFORE they reach the emergency level. People cannot afford to see doctors, so that burning when they pee is ignored until they've got urosepsis and they're dying and require a hospital or possibly ICU stay. They still aren't going to be able to pay for it, of course.

The country will benefit, in the long run, from people who can afford to take care of themselves. They generally live longer, healthier and more productive lives. And pay taxes longer.

When people are given other options besides the ER for treatment, maybe there will be a decrease in the "I hurt my toe three days ago and I feel I should go see a doctor but I have no insurance" ambulance runs.

And before anyone brings up medicaid as an option, medicaid gives benefits to people based on income, trying to squeeze people into a formula that a family of such and such size that makes more than whatever set amount should be able to afford health insurance. People are diverse with diverse situations, you can't possibly cover it all in a formula.


----------



## JPINFV (Mar 9, 2009)

How much of personal health care funding comes from improper prioritization? Are the same people who are clamoring for socialized health care going out every day for Star Bucks and eating out 5 times a week? Is it that people can't afford proper health care or won't budget enough for health care if they have the means to support themselves?


----------



## Sasha (Mar 9, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> How much of personal health care funding comes from improper prioritization? Are the same people who are clamoring for socialized health care going out every day for Star Bucks and eating out 5 times a week? Is it that people can't afford proper health care or won't budget enough for health care if they have the means to support themselves?



I'm sure there are people who refuse to budget for health care, but what about those who would have to pay absurd insurance premiums due to pre-exsisting conditions? Or the people who aren't going out for Star Bucks and eating out five times a week, but have been eating nothing but ramen noodles for two weeks who can't afford to spend the extra money on premiums?

I did a quick BCBS quote (On my 50+ something mom.) and the cheapest premium would be $288. That's as much as my car payment. Co-Pays are $35 for a regular visit, $50 for a specialist. If someone was struggling to make rent, that $288 could be the difference of having a home and being homeless. Many can't afford to be insured.


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 9, 2009)

I hate this whole "millions of Americans are without healthcare". Guess what?  Those numbers are tainted!

Homeless don't have it because they can't afford it.  Many college kids and young adults don't have it because they simply don't see the need to spend that amount of money on something they may not use for 10 years.  Foolish?  Maybe, but still somewhat true.



Here's the real answer to the healthcare system--- get rid of people taking advantage of it.

If everyone would have paid their bills, then the hospitals wouldn't have to charge more to recuperate their losses, and insurance companies wouldn't have to pay more to the hospitals, and people wouldn't have to pay higher premiums.

Sorry, it's a fact-- just like the current housing market, if people would have not taken advantage of it and paid their bills, we wouldn't be in this position.   Are there people who truly need help?  Yes, and they deserve it.  But not the lazy portion of the country, not ever.


I don't want my money that I worked hard for going to some lazy person who refuses to do his part.  My money is much more useful elsewhere in the country then promoting laziness.


I'm ALL for helping those who try as hard as they can and still need help.  I'm NOT for helping those with the "woe is me" attitude.


----------



## Sasha (Mar 9, 2009)

> Many college kids and young adults don't have it because they simply don't see the need to spend that amount of money on something they may not use for 10 years. Foolish? Maybe, but still somewhat true.



That is more than foolish, it's just plain ignorant. Illness knows no age limit. If I hadn't had insurance when I sought treatment for a crippling disorder, I wouldn't have been able to afford it and probably would not be here today. And I'm a "college kid young adult" I'm only 21. And guess what? Everyone but ONE person that I had been in treatment with was under the age of 25. We were all young adults! 

Then you've got things HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis, various cancers, broken bones, diabetes, UTIs, torn ligaments, a ton of other things that yes, young adults can get too and costs money to take care of! You can't NOT take care of those things.



> If everyone would have paid their bills, then the hospitals wouldn't have to charge more to recuperate their losses, and insurance companies wouldn't have to pay more to the hospitals, and people wouldn't have to pay higher premiums.



Maybe people could afford to pay their bills if they could afford insurance. But the cost of health care is so outrageous many people simply just can't afford to pay. What do you expect them to do? Go homeless to pay off a hospital bill?



> Homeless don't have it because they can't afford it.



And that is a HUGE problem! Are they not more prone to getting sick than the average adult?


----------



## dfd3036 (Mar 9, 2009)

*Universal Health*

I am new to this site, but as I am definately not a supporter of Michael Moore I will encourage anyone with questions about Univeral Healthcare to watch his movie Sicko.  I was actually getting angry with being an American after watching this movie.  Alot of points in the movie make you think, but one that stands in my mind is when he was talking to a Englishman about when England started there Universal Healthcare.  The guy just explain that when England started theirs they were a war-torn country that was bankrupt after WWII.  If it worked for them how come it couldnt work for us?


Just my 2 cents. Thanks for reading


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 9, 2009)

Because Moore doesn't taint or turn things in his favor in ANY of his movies to further his agenda.


I know quite a few Canadians who hate national health care because of many reasons.


----------



## PapaBear434 (Mar 9, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> How much of personal health care funding comes from improper prioritization? Are the same people who are clamoring for socialized health care going out every day for Star Bucks and eating out 5 times a week? Is it that people can't afford proper health care or won't budget enough for health care if they have the means to support themselves?



My wife is a nurse in the US Navy.  We have completely free health care.  I still want universal health care.


----------



## PapaBear434 (Mar 9, 2009)

Linuss said:


> Because Moore doesn't taint or turn things in his favor in ANY of his movies to further his agenda.
> 
> 
> I know quite a few Canadians who hate national health care because of many reasons.



I have family in Canada.  When I went to visit them, I busted my shoulder up pretty good.  A doctor visit at the local acute care clinic, with hardly any wait despite their being busy, cost me NOTHING.  

I tried to give them my TriCare card, told them I had insurance, but they just told me it wasn't needed and they hoped I felt better.  I got some pain killers from the pharmacy for about $4.00 American, and HE told me that he hoped my stay in Canada went smoother than it had so far.  

Basically, I'm saying that my family has yet to have any of the trouble with the "OMG WAIT TIMES AND LOUSY CARE"  boogiemen that the right loves to bring up anytime someone mentions universal health care, and they even treated a non resident with excellent care when they really didn't have too.  And they have yet to go bankrupt or let their society collapse under the horrible weight of having to take care of those lazy sick people with cancer they can't afford.


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 9, 2009)

Now you're just being choosing to ignore the facts Papabear;

There is a HUGE difference between being lazy and not being able to do something... MONUMENTAL.  If someone chooses not to do something, but is capable, they are lazy.  If someone is injured and can't do something, then they are not.  The ones that CAN'T do something are the ones that need the help, not the ones that choose not to better themselves.


Why should the people who work hard pick up the tab for those who choose not to help themselves, if so capable?  There is no logical reasoning for that.


Don't know how I can make that any more clear.


----------



## JPINFV (Mar 9, 2009)

Linuss said:


> Why should the people who work hard pick up the tab for those who choose not to help themselves, if so capable?  There is no logical reasoning for that.



Who is John Galt?


----------



## Ridryder911 (Mar 9, 2009)

I think I find it ironic and funny it is the out of countrymen that was us to have Socialized medicine. Of course they do not understand that are Pharmaceutical companies make trillions and more from the U.S. Citizens. If it was not for us paying for the research, marketing; guess what their government prices would be. 

Yes, go to another foreign country or even neighboring one. Purchase presecreptive medicaitions and see the cost difference. Why? Because, we foot the bill for others. So heck yes, bring the socialized medicine on! Then let the other countries make up the difference. I believe we will a different attitude when their countries no longer can afford the medication too. 

Sasha hit the most important key though. Preventitive medication. Problem is most U.S. citizens are too lazy to participate. I was a House Supv at a IHS Hospital; every day we would have at least 300 awaiting for the clinic (non-scheduled) and about 25 for the scheduled side. All the same types of problems, all aware if they would had called just prior the waiting would be shorter. When asked ; Why not? The answer was always the same.. Ididn't have the time; or I thought I could get in faster".. The same with medications. Free health care, free medications and guess what? Non-compliancy is incredibly high! So there is a small snippit of U.S. having socialized medicine. 

Yes, reduce the costs as long as there is active preventitive participation. I don't mind giving a hand up but not a hand out. 

R/r 911


----------



## Veneficus (Mar 9, 2009)

just some numbers.

The average healthcare plan costs US families 12K a year. 

The average family income for 2 working adults in the US is less than 50K a year.

Not everyone is fortunate enough to have a healthcare job. Many couldn't afford insurance if they wanted it, and countless are under insured. One of my friends had "insurance" and worked hard all her life. Her 80/20 plan, left her 10K in debt after one acute illness. She has no other medical problems. 

I know all the conservative people think everyone is getting a hand out. I don't like my taxes raised either, but the truth is we are paying for it through taxes. Look at the medicare/medicade budgets. Nobody here with a job gets any benefit from that. So rearranging the taxes so you do get something might be good. 

Every medical "expert" I have met dealing with healthcare funding in the US has been claiming socialized is the only realistic way. I am not exactly a bleeding heart liberal, but the "i don't want to pay for somebody else" line or the "we'll have to wait in line,"  "don't get to choose our doctor," we "fund everyone elses healthcare," lines are BS. The reasons other countries have what they do is because they made is a priority, chose to pay for it, and will not pay health insurance companies to deny healthcare or allow pharm. companies to bilk the paying populous. 

If you want to be part of the solution, take a pragmatic look instead of party line. But I have come to not expect much in the way of pragmatism from religious zealots and the party of down south white boys.


----------



## Ridryder911 (Mar 9, 2009)

Ven just ask a neurosurgeon if they support Socialized medicine? And ask any specialized surgeon the same thing, then see if they want to see a "cap" placed upon their salaries and payment structures with limitations. 

Just check into AMA political forum to see their view

R/r 911


----------



## Veneficus (Mar 9, 2009)

There is inefficent payment structures now. 

The AMA also represents the old guard best interests. Truthfully if somebody told me my salary cap would be $180,000 a year (or 90K GBP, base) I wouldn't complain. (after my 5 year residency and 2-4 year fellowship in addition to my 10 academic years) But also consider that right out of school the pay at NHS is 32k GBP which is considerably more than the $42k average for a intern. The top pay to consultant physicians (aka attendings) is 173,638GBP.

At todays exchange rate that is $237,884.06 a year. Of course that doesn't include the fact of a 40 hour work week, considerably less in malpractice insurance and schooling doesn't cost nearly as much. What a tragedy it would be to only have to accept 1/4 of a million dollars a year working 40 hours. I will remember to cry a tear for the neurosurgeons tonight that can't bear the thought.

There are also location bounuses, like a 20% increase for working in central london vs. a 15% increase for working BFE. 

I have no doubt that people benefiting from todays mess in medicine don't want it to go away. 

The AMA also doesn't want hospitals accepting foreign school students to pay for clinical slots because it is only a matter of time before the American students will have to also. (which will put a bite in the pockets of medical universities, and divine entity forbid American students pay an equal share for something.) 

But maybe some wealthy Americans can stop being greedy and do something for the good of all Americans?


----------



## daedalus (Mar 9, 2009)

Ridryder911 said:


> I'm all for it, as soon as the countries that owe us money pay it back we will have enough to pay for it.
> 
> Again, what bullish crap. Sorry, but as of yet I have not seen anyone  not receive direct emergency care because of non-payment. Now, they may not be able to recieve the additonal care, that I will not debate.
> 
> ...



Im with rid/ryder. We already have a nanny state that takes care of irresponsible and reckless people. I will be for universal healthcare only if it is not offered to alcoholics and smokers and obese people(exception for the pathologically obese). They should have to pay a premium. These are modifiable risk factors that contribute to most of our healthcare spending. Yet medicare pays for there once a year ICU stays and they still go out and smoke and rape the taxpayers!!


----------



## Sasha (Mar 9, 2009)

> I will be for universal healthcare only if it is not offered to alcoholics and smokers and obese people



Why stop there? How about women who get cervical cancer after refusing the HPV vaccine? How about ANYONE who gets cancer? We tell people what we think MAY be carcinogens, yet they continue to come in contact with them. How about people in big cities? They KNOW that all that air pollution is bad for their health and they choose to live there anyway. How about we exclude EMTs and Paramedics? They know that they may very well pick something up from their patients, but they continue to work anyway. After all, those are modifiable risk factors.


----------



## PapaBear434 (Mar 9, 2009)

Sasha said:


> Why stop there? How about women who get cervical cancer after refusing the HPV vaccine? How about ANYONE who gets cancer? We tell people what we think MAY be carcinogens, yet they continue to come in contact with them. How about people in big cities? They KNOW that all that air pollution is bad for their health and they choose to live there anyway. How about we exclude EMTs and Paramedics? They know that they may very well pick something up from their patients, but they continue to work anyway. After all, those are modifiable risk factors.



NOW you're thinking like an insurance carrier!


----------



## enjoynz (Mar 9, 2009)

daedalus said:


> Im with rid/ryder. We already have a nanny state that takes care of irresponsible and reckless people. I will be for universal healthcare only if it is not offered to alcoholics and smokers and obese people(exception for the pathologically obese). They should have to pay a premium. These are modifiable risk factors that contribute to most of our healthcare spending. Yet medicare pays for there once a year ICU stays and they still go out and smoke and rape the taxpayers!!



No the tax payer should not be paying for Smokers and Alcoholics health care... lol.... The manufacturers of these products should be covering their healthcare costs!

That being said...every person knows before they start to drink or smoke, the health risks involved, if they don't, they need to be made aware!
It's only in recent times that has been done, if you look back to the early 1900's.

Enjoynz


----------



## Ridryder911 (Mar 9, 2009)

Veneficus said:


> There is inefficent payment structures now.
> 
> The AMA also represents the old guard best interests. Truthfully if somebody told me my salary cap would be $180,000 a year (or 90K GBP, base) I wouldn't complain. (after my 5 year residency and 2-4 year fellowship in addition to my 10 academic years) But also consider that right out of school the pay at NHS is 32k GBP which is considerably more than the $42k average for a intern. The top pay to consultant physicians (aka attendings) is 173,638GBP.
> 
> ...



I bet you say a different story of a cap $180,000 after your ten year forfiet of working as a practicing physician until you finish your fellowship and 1/4  million dollar school loans. Then of course your $50,000 malpractice insurance. Now, with respect you will get reimbursed now with socialized at a very low reduced fixed costs. Yes, fixed no differential in pay structure alike the DRG's they have now. 



Sasha said:


> Why stop there? How about women who get cervical cancer after refusing the HPV vaccine? How about ANYONE who gets cancer? We tell people what we think MAY be carcinogens, yet they continue to come in contact with them. How about people in big cities? They KNOW that all that air pollution is bad for their health and they choose to live there anyway. How about we exclude EMTs and Paramedics? They know that they may very well pick something up from their patients, but they continue to work anyway. After all, those are modifiable risk factors.



Actually, there is controlled risks and not controlled ones. There is allowable ones that one cannot choose for risk factors such as some medical conditions being heredity and inability to control them There are factors one chooses though. Bad habits and unhealthy life styles that the patient chose those risks. 

R/r 911


----------



## wehttam (Mar 9, 2009)

anyone seen the program called "sick around the world"? u can watch the short video it highlights the fact that incomparison to places like china ,uk,germany that the us health care systems pales in comparison actually the US health system is ranked 37th in the world.maybe what the US needs to do is to research other countries healthcare system and take the good out of each and implement a system of universal health care that will work.what is also amazing is the fact that they spend less money on health care mind u there systems is not without fault as the program highlghts. click on the link below.or copy and paste it in your browser. go to the bottom of the page the click on watchonine

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

p.s forgive my "u"s lol


----------



## Veneficus (Mar 9, 2009)

Ridryder911 said:


> I bet you say a different story of a cap $180,000 after your ten year forfiet of working as a practicing physician until you finish your fellowship and 1/4  million dollar school loans. Then of course your $50,000 malpractice insurance. Now, with respect you will get reimbursed now with socialized at a very low reduced fixed costs. Yes, fixed no differential in pay structure alike the DRG's they have now.



Actually,  If I didn't have to pay my 1/4 million in school loans, I wouldn't really require that much. Not because I don't think I am worth it  But I guess I just don't require that much. Where do you draw the line between ambition and greed?


----------



## Sasha (Mar 9, 2009)

> There is allowable ones that one cannot choose for risk factors such as some medical conditions being heredity and inability to control them There are factors one chooses though. Bad habits and unhealthy life styles that the patient chose those risks.



And how are any of the things I listed hereditary? HPV is an STD which has been extensively linked to cervical cancer and there is a VACCINE for it. If women choose not to get the vaccine and contract HPV, should we deny them health insurance like we deny those who choose to drink or smoke? They made a concious choice to decline the vaccine and have unprotected sex (let's not get into semantics, now.).

Living in cities with polluted air is also not hereditary, no one can force you to live anywhere. If you make a choice to live in, say, NYC, can we deny coverage when they develop lung cancer? Can you prove something else caused the lung cancer? Can you prove that smoking did cause the lung cancer, and it was not some predisposition or other external or internal factors? Last time I checked you didn't have to be a smoker to get cancer, and you don't have to have cancer to be a smoker.

And people choose to enter the medical field, knowing full well there is a risk of exposure to TB, Hep C, PNA, HIV, C-Diff, MRSA, just to name a few lovlies. It's also a high stress enviorment. Stress makes you sick. Plus you're constantly exposed to the cold coughy sniffley ickies. Plus there's the exhaustion factored in, a lifestyle not convienent for healthy, well balanced meals. Should we deny health coverage to EMTs, Paramedics, Doctors, RNs, CNAs, even the clerical and house keeping staff in a hospital? They CHOSE to work there, no one forced them into it, it wasn't something inhereited. I mean... they could have possibly caused their own illnesses, why should we pay because they want to be in medicine?


----------



## daedalus (Mar 9, 2009)

Sasha said:


> And how are any of the things I listed hereditary? HPV is an STD which has been extensively linked to cervical cancer and there is a VACCINE for it. If women choose not to get the vaccine and contract HPV, should we deny them health insurance like we deny those who choose to drink or smoke? They made a concious choice to decline the vaccine and have unprotected sex (let's not get into semantics, now.).
> 
> Living in cities with polluted air is also not hereditary, no one can force you to live anywhere. If you make a choice to live in, say, NYC, can we deny coverage when they develop lung cancer? Can you prove something else caused the lung cancer? Can you prove that smoking did cause the lung cancer, and it was not some predisposition or other external or internal factors? Last time I checked you didn't have to be a smoker to get cancer, and you don't have to have cancer to be a smoker.
> 
> And people choose to enter the medical field, knowing full well there is a risk of exposure to TB, Hep C, PNA, HIV, C-Diff, MRSA, just to name a few lovlies. It's also a high stress enviorment. Stress makes you sick. Plus you're constantly exposed to the cold coughy sniffley ickies. Plus there's the exhaustion factored in, a lifestyle not convienent for healthy, well balanced meals. Should we deny health coverage to EMTs, Paramedics, Doctors, RNs, CNAs, even the clerical and house keeping staff in a hospital? They CHOSE to work there, no one forced them into it, it wasn't something inhereited. I mean... they could have possibly caused their own illnesses, why should we pay because they want to be in medicine?


Well, we have to draw a line somewhere. You cannot expect taxpayers to pay for your MI after you ate mcdonalds twice a day for your entire life, used the money you should have spent on your blood pressure pills on cigarettes instead, and refused to exercise.


----------



## Sasha (Mar 9, 2009)

daedalus said:


> Well, we have to draw a line somewhere. You cannot expect taxpayers to pay for your MI after you ate mcdonalds twice a day for your entire life, used the money you should have spent on your blood pressure pills on cigarettes instead, and refused to exercise.



That's ignorant. Can you prove, directly that they would have not had an MI if it had not been for the McDondalds? That their obesity caused their heart attack? Or that their cigarettes caused their hypertension and lung cancer? What if they bought both their HTN meds and cigarettes? What if lung cancer ran in their family? Do they get to go back under social healthcare?

Should we expect taxpayers to pay for an HIV patient's doctor visits? If they hadn't had unprotected sex or used clean needles, afterall... 

Where do you draw the line on the discrimination? If we deny them coverage under social health care, do they get a tax break or are we going to force them to pay for benefits they can't use? How are you going to determine what transcends into too much alcohol or too fat? BMI index is pretty worthless when you take into consideration different body types. How are you to prove their obesity is a result of lack of excercise and fast food? What if they ate healthy and are still obese?


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 9, 2009)

If someone doesn't contribute to social security, should they be allowed to withdraw from it when they retire?


----------



## Melbourne MICA (Mar 10, 2009)

*To be (sick) or not to be (sick) that is the question Horatio*

Should pts with mental illness, illegal immigrants, convicts like murderers and pedophiles, the soldiers wounded in that secret military raid that blew up "terrorists" but killed 50 children in the process all get universal free health cover +/- health insurance?

Should I be entitled to universal health care/insurance? Should you get it if you happen to be 25, don't get sick so no private cover, get pissed one night fall over and receive multi trauma injuries? 

What do you do tomorrow when your kid is diagnosed with an illness/condition that will require $250,000 worth of treatment from a problem that runs in your family but skips every second generation?

I'm sure we can find many "classes" of people who "don't deserve" taxpayer funded health care or insurance cover. But what happens to you or your child when, perhaps even by accident you find yourself in one of those "classes" of the non-deserving?

Where do you draw the line and who decides on that line?

Exactly what do we expect from any "health care" system and why?


I dislocated my elbow playing soccer some years ago, was off work for four months, had MRI's, ambulance transport on the day with treatment, ED treatment and assessment, specialist consults at around $140 a throw, physio, drugs and splints and the like etc etc.

Even with the top private cover this would have cost me thousands out of pocket - Even on my wage I could not have afforded that. It cost me virtually nothing under universal coverage but more importantly, relieved me and my family of stress, ensured that I made a full recovery and could go back to being a taxpayer and permitted me to return to the lifestyle from which I derive meaning for my life.  

Now I shouldn't be allowed to play soccer (again) at my age should I costing the taxpayers all that money? Mind you I'm not using anti-hypertensives, haven't had an infarct yet, my weight is good and the fresh air and exercise lowers my stress levels from ambo work.

I don't live a subsistence life in the bush just fending for *myself *and *my *family, killing wild boar, picking fruit and digging a whole in the ground to do a poo in. 

My life is a little more complicated than that. And is certainly doesn't revolve around money though most of the health care debate seems to.

MM


----------



## Melbourne MICA (Mar 10, 2009)

*Details for Ridders*



Ridryder911 said:


> Also, what credible source did those numbers come from? From what I remember, Trauma is the fourth leading cause of death; definitely not lack of insurance. R/r 911



I found some links to references for the info I provided Ridders plus a few others that are relevant. (A number of the links site a report in the US Journal of the American Medical Association from 2000). Others are more recent. I'm trying to track down other info from the ABC report.

Cheers

MM

Links date range from 1999-2009

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/chiropractic_health_care/64085

http://www.health-care-reform.net/causedeath.htm 

http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S1020-49892000000400020&script=sci_arttext

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/03/06/healthcare/index.html?source=rss&aim=/news/feature

http://www.cancure.org/medical_errors.htm

http://www.familiesusa.org/resource...008-press-releases/dying-for-coverage-wv.html

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/81895/death_by_lack_of_health_insurance/

http://www.familiesusa.org/resource...008-press-releases/dying-for-coverage-ca.html

http://southernstudies.org/2008/04/health-insurance-matter-of-life-and.html

http://www.peertrainer.com/LoungeCommunityThread.aspx?ForumID=1&ThreadID=87451

http://atypicaljoe.com/index.php/site/comments/health_insurance_in_america_dying_for_coverage/

http://thehealthyskeptic.org/medical-care-is-the-3rd-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-us/


----------



## Melbourne MICA (Mar 10, 2009)

*A couple more*

A few more worth a look. The one from Illinois does a pretty good summing up on the way lack of health insurance affects peoples decison making in health matters.

MM

http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0408-02.htm

http://www.illinoispirg.org/uploads...Dying-For-Coverage-Families-USA-new-study.pdf 

- a good summary

http://www.apa.org/practice/paper/homepage.html 
(I mentioned mental health sufferers and insurance)

http://www.mindfully.org/Health/2003/United-States-Health-2003-4oct03.htm

overall analysis from 2003

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/103039.php

http://www.apru.org/awi/workshops/public_health2008/ppt/5-7 Nazem.pdf

(from Japan believe it or not)

Sorry getting a bit carried away - enough to read for a month.


----------



## karaya (Mar 10, 2009)

Melbourne MICA said:


> ...the soldiers wounded in that secret military raid that blew up "terrorists" but killed 50 children in the process all get universal free health cover +/- health insurance?


 
At first, Melbourne, I thought you were somewhat serious about opening a discussion on Universal Health Care, which you've devoted some extensive time on this subject in a previous thread. But, now you start a new post on this thread with an absolutely irrelevant opening paragraph that contained the above comment.

Just what are you really doing here? Opening some intelligent, thought provoking conversation about Universal Health Care? We all seemed to have been fooled by believing that was your intent, because it is clear you have an agenda and you just couldn't resist advancing it a notch here with your ludicrous and obtuse analogy.


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 10, 2009)

Melbourne MICA said:


> I found some links to references for the info I provided Ridders plus a few others that are relevant. (A number of the links site a report in the US Journal of the American Medical Association from 2000). Others are more recent. I'm trying to track down other info from the ABC report.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> ...





He said credible... .coms and .orgs are not credible.  .govs and .edu tend to be much more credible as they don't have anything to gain from their reports.


And for the love of god, don't pass "thehealthyskeptic" off as credible.


----------



## Veneficus (Mar 10, 2009)

do you think that the last administration put out anything credible on their .gov sites?


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 10, 2009)

Veneficus said:


> do you think that the last administration put out anything credible on their .gov sites?





Prove otherwise, and I might be content at listening.  

And for the love of God, if I see a single Wikipedia post labeled as "credible" I will slap a baby.


----------



## daedalus (Mar 10, 2009)

Linuss said:


> Prove otherwise, and I might be content at listening.
> 
> And for the love of God, if I see a single Wikipedia post labeled as "credible" I will slap a baby.


Wikipedia is VERY credable. 

One only has to watch HOW FAST something is corrected if somebody tries to deface it. Wikipedia also requires first sources for its articles and its collective editors will flag articles that do not quote legit sources.

There are very very few instances of blatantly false information on wikipedia.


----------



## karaya (Mar 10, 2009)

daedalus said:


> Wikipedia is VERY credable.
> 
> There are very very few instances of blatantly false information on wikipedia.


 
Of course, as your signature states, this is your opinion.  As for me, I find it reckless to assert that an on-line encyclopedia, one that can be edited by anyone anonymously, as VERY credible.  Even when citations are requested, many times they are not and the entry remains intact.

I do however use Wikipedia as a guide, chiefly using the cited references to point me in a more reliable direction.  I'm particularly careful on any resource article that may be subject to any political controversies.  Better to steer away from those.


----------



## Veneficus (Mar 10, 2009)

Linuss said:


> Prove otherwise, and I might be content at listening.
> 
> And for the love of God, if I see a single Wikipedia post labeled as "credible" I will slap a baby.



There was a study done by some pharmacists that appeared on medscape that showed wikipedia as being erroneous on medications up to 40% of the time. But as for .org not being credible:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/

http://content.nejm.org/

http://www.facs.org/

http://www.acep.org/

http://www.thelancet.com

http://www.medscape.com

http://www.estesonline.org/

http://www.surgeons.org

Perhaps you doubt the reputation of these sites? They are all .com and .org.

It will also be hard to find a lot of the .gov abstinence only BS now that the administration has changed, but there is plenty of news articles on the net it did exist. but I do submit this .gov with special attention to the quote:

"Under the Bush Administration, federal support for abstinence-only education has risen dramatically. This report finds that over two-thirds of abstinence-only education programs funded by the largest federal abstinence initiative are using criteria with multiple scientific and medical inaccuracies. These currucula contain misinformation about condoms, abortion, and basic scientific facts. They also blur religion and science and present gener stereotypes as fact."

You think this "largest federal support" didn't appear on a .gov website?

how about these government sites?

http://www.president.ir/eng/government/

http://english.gov.cn/

Would you like to revise your statement?


----------



## bstone (Mar 10, 2009)

I am for Socialized Health Care. I believe that people are stupid and do not prioritize their needs properly. They will spend $300 on a haircut but not $300 on health insurance premiums. Thus, everyone should be taxed just a little bit more (and also the $50b a month from the Iraq invasion should be repurposes) and we develop a roboust and well funded socialized health system.

I am a very big fan of the Israeli system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Israel
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/M...ealth Care System in Israel- An Historical Pe
http://www.physiciansnews.com/spotlight/698dv.html

I also believe that the private insurance companies should be allowed to continue and supplement care.


----------



## daedalus (Mar 10, 2009)

bstone said:


> I am for Socialized Health Care. I believe that people are stupid and do not prioritize their needs properly. They will spend $300 on a haircut but not $300 on health insurance premiums. Thus, everyone should be taxed just a little bit more (and also the $50b a month from the Iraq invasion should be repurposes) and we develop a roboust and well funded socialized health system.
> 
> I am a very big fan of the Israeli system.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Israel
> ...



Perhaps you are on to something, bstone.

Karaya, I do not mean to say that wikipedia is the bible for all information, but i do get upset when ignorant people claim that 70 % of wikipedia is bull, and many many professors (esp English) have tried to tell me that. I would never write a college paper using only wikipedia, but as you have, I use it as a guide. It is a generally very accurate guide. BTW, do you know who I am? I am the smoking man, and I tell you to trust wikipedia for all you will ever need to know  jk.

Veneficous however, is also on to something. It would be reckless to rely on wikipedia for medication information if you were to integrate what you found into clinical practice as a paramedic or other healthcare professional.


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 10, 2009)

Go to a college and use Wikipedia as a source on a paper, and see what the teacher does.


I use wikipedia to look up things that I want to know about quickly, but have never and will never use it as a source.


----------



## bstone (Mar 10, 2009)

Linuss said:


> Go to a college and use Wikipedia as a source on a paper, and see what the teacher does.
> 
> 
> I use wikipedia to look up things that I want to know about quickly, but have never and will never use it as a source.



I wrote a 15 page paper on reliability in wikipedia. Want to see it?


----------



## PapaBear434 (Mar 10, 2009)

bstone said:


> I wrote a 15 page paper on reliability in wikipedia. Want to see it?



I use it as a jumping point, most of the time.  It's like a card catalog of the internet.  Most things there will lead you to links of actual, credible sites you CAN trust.


----------



## bstone (Mar 10, 2009)

Wikipedia is Generally Reliable 

In a recent Internet Relay Chat among volunteer editors of the English language Wikipedia, Wikipedia was said to be filled with 85% of articles being malarial swamps and 15% beacons of light and hope. What is the real truth about Wikipedia and its articles? Wikipedia, claimed to be the largest and fastest growing encyclopedia in the world, was founded by James Wales in 2001 (“Wikipedia History”). Wales created Wikipedia as a hobby project in addition to his commercial ventures of running commercial pornographic websites. Originally written exclusively by Wales, he quickly opened up editing to registered users and encouraged editing in a collaborative manner. In the past several years, Wikipedia policies have been amended to allow for editing of articles by anyone with an Internet connection. One need not be a registered user to contribute content and discussion to the encyclopedia. The open nature of Wikipedia, and the huge number of articles, has brought much criticism to the project for containing inaccurate information, unchecked vandalism of articles and hoax articles. Conversely, the sheer number of volunteer editors and casual browsers who take time to revert vandalism, add content and sources allows for a rapidly expanding project which provides for increased quality. Contrary the some critics, most articles on Wikipedia are generally reliable and contain verifiable facts.
 	In 1996, James Wales founded a company called Bomis. Bomis was created to be an Internet content provider and hosted various websites. The most popular and visited websites hosted on the Bomis servers were the pornographic sites (Freebase.com). In 2001, Wales and Larry Sanger founded Wikipedia. Wikipedia was designed to be a test project to help develop content for a larger project called Nupedia. Nupedia was an online encyclopedia which was meant to be free and with the articles written by experts in their respective fields. A wiki is a piece of software which runs on a server. Wiki software allows many people to work collaboratively on a set of articles. On a wiki, there exists a heading tab which allows one to view a variety of information. This is an example of such a heading used on a normal Wikipedia article:

 Clicking on the various tabs will bring up different screens of information. The “article” tab displays the main content of the article. The “discussion” tab contains notes and conversations left for collaborating editors regarding content on the article. “Edit this page” displays the raw data that makes up the “article”. “History” shows every single revision to the article, no matter how minor, and allows for comparison between any two versions of the article. Nupedia, however, was not designed on the wiki platform, but rather subject to peer review and expert leadership (Freebase). In the first year of production, Nupedia only succeeded in creating twelve new articles. In order to assist in development of more content and articles, Wales and Sanger decided to add the ability for community-developed content to Nupedia in the form of a wiki. Rather quickly, however, there was significant community dissent regarding this manner of content. Thus, the wiki section of Nupedia was spun off into its own project, called Wikipedia, on January 10, 2001. Originally, Bomis was hosting the servers which contained the content for Wikipedia. As Wikipedia grew in popularity and due to the downturn in the Internet economy of the early 2000s, Wales decided to create the Wikimedia Foundation. The foundation is a registered not-for-profit with a headquarters in San Francisco, CA and hosts all of the computers, servers and paid employees of the Wikimedia Foundation. In addition, the foundation is responsible for raising all of the funds required to continually operate and improve Wikipedia and associated projects.  
James Wales serves as the Chairman Emeritus of the Wikimedia Foundation and serves as the defacto editor-in-chief of Wikipedia. Below Wales exist a variety of official, quasi-official and non-official positions which volunteers are able to achieve in order to assist with Wikipedia. Among the official positions are Steward, Bureaucrat and Administrator. Stewards are the highest among these official positions as their rights and privilidges and have the ability to delete and censor edits. As well, Stewards are able to promote editors to the Bureaucrat and Administrator positions. Bureaucrats are editors who have been selected to become highly trusted users in an individual wiki and have access to less technical ability than that at of Stewards, but greater than that of Administrators. Bureaucrats can promote editors to Administrator or Bureaucrat status, have all the same responsibility of Administrators and can technically overrule them on issues pertaining to policy. In addition, Bureaucrats are responsible for interpreting results of community discussions/votes for which users are promoted to Administrator and Bureaucrat status. The last official position, which by design is the most frequent and numerous, is that of Administrator. Administrators are volunteer editors who have spent a great deal of time editing and adding content to individual articles, participating in discussions regarding deletion of articles and have demonstrated strong knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There are currently over 1500 Administrators. Volunteer editors must usually be very active for several months before applying to go through a ‘Request for Adminship’. In such a request, the user is subjected to several dozen questions which judge their knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. In addition, any registered users of the community is able to vote ‘support’, ‘oppose’ or ‘neutral’, with the option of leaving a statement. Often this leads to a great deal of discussion regarding the user, the votes and frequently leads to changes in a vote. In the end, an Administrator, Bureaucrat and Steward are promoted after an examination of the votes reveals a clear consensus of support. At times, the threshold of consensus is subject to liberal interpretation which can lead to many extended debates. In the end, however, promotion of a user is usually based upon strong community consensus.
	In addition to Stewards, Bureaucrats and Administrators, there exist at least two Wikipedia committees made up of users which are official. These are the Arbitration Committee and the Mediation Committee. Both committees were created in 2004 by Wales as methods to help with the increasing number of major disputes and debates which were stalling the progress of article creation. The Arbitration Committee consists of ten active users who are the de facto supreme court of Wikipedia. When all manners of dispute resolution fail to resolve debates on content of interpersonal editor issues, the Arbitration Committee is able to pass binding decisions. Such decisions can be specific to content of a particular article, an interpretation of policy, creation of new guidelines and policy, discipline and admonishment of individual or groups of editors, temporary blocking and outright banning of users who persistently violate the rules of Wikipedia. Members of the Arbitration Committee are voted in for a three year term, confirmed by the rubber stamp of James Wales and then identified to the Wikimedia Foundation. While a non-administrator is able to run for a position on the Arbitration Committee, all current members are Administrators and no non-admin has ever been successfully elected. Recently, the Arbitration Committee has been heavily criticized for several decisions passed, including one decision in which a trial was held in complete secrecy without the defendant even knowing he was on trial. This has generated a tremendous amount of criticism of the Arbitration Committee, including calls for reform and resignations. The Mediation Committee consists of fourteen users who are self-elected by other Committee members and lead by a chair. The charter of the Mediation Committee is specific to content disputes, while it is specifically excluded from investigation and determining policy, guideline or inter-personal editor issues. Mediation Committee members serve for an indefinite period of time (“Wikipedia” Mediation Committee”).
	Among the few quasi-official committees in Wikipedia is the Medication Cabal. Lead by only two formal chairmen, the MedCabal claims that all users, editors and administrators are members of the MedCabal. This Cabal states, “The Mediation Cabal is a bunch of volunteers providing unofficial, informal mediation for disputes on Wikipedia. We do not impose sanctions or make judgments. We at MedCabal are not at all official and are just ordinary Wikipedians. We facilitate communication and help parties reach an agreement by their own efforts.” (“Wikipedia: Mediation Cabal”).
These formal and informal governing structures of Wikipedia are the basis and methods in which the several hundred active Wikipedia volunteer editors are able to maintain order and continue to add articles, content and resolve disputes.


----------



## bstone (Mar 10, 2009)

Wikipedia has several different classifications of articles. They are Featured Articles, Good Articles (also known as A Class Articles), copy edited articles (also called B and C Class Articles) and non-copy edited articles (also called Stub and Start articles) (“Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment”). Featured Articles have been thoroughly edited, sourced, expanded and deemed to live up to most scrutiny. Good Articles have been extensively edited, sourced and are considered to quite literally be in good condition. Project Rated Articles are those which have support from a particular project on Wikipedia and have been assigned a level of importance as well as a quality assessment. Copy edited articles are those with a small to moderate amount of information, usually with many references and sources and have often been copy edited for content, tone and readability. Lastly, non-copy edited articles are those which have not had any sort of copy edit review, assessment, or adoption by a project and are often in very poor non-encyclopedic form. To the casual observer, this represents a system in which certain articles are quite reliable and continues in a descending order or reliability from most to least. 
	Wikipedia has recently been the subject of various media reports. Some of these reports have either been highly supportive of Wikipedia as being generally reliable and others have been very critical. Beginning with the most critical a Scottish news source, Scotsman.com News, recently ran an article which described high school school students failing their exams at an increasing and alarming rate. The author describes, “The Scottish Parent Teacher Council (SPTC) said pupils are turning to websites and internet resources that contain inaccurate or deliberately misleading information…” (McLaughlin). This illustrates that the information being taken from Wikipedia and being used in for school reports and for exam preparation. However, the topics in which these students are taking information from is riddled with so many errors that the students are receiving failing marks on homework and exams. In response to this Wikipedia states, “While Wikipedia articles generally attain a good standard after editing, it is important to note that fledgling, or less well monitored, articles may be susceptible to vandalism and insertion of false information.” (“Wikipedia:Verifiability”). This brings up interesting and valid points. The first is possible vandalism to the articles in which these students were accessing. The Scotsman.com News does not include a list or topic in which these students were attempting to write about, thus an examination of possible vandalism is impossible. Vandalism is an endemic problem on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia servers do not require people to register an account before being able to alter and edit a page. However, a related policy about Wikipedia vandalism states, “Repetitively and intentionally making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia will result in a block or permanent ban.” (“Wikipedia:Vandalism”). Thus, Wikipedia does indeed have an official policy as to how it deals with vandalism. Those who vandalize Wikipedia can be blocked for short periods of time, extending longer or outright banned from the project altogether. The other main issue is the insertion of false or misleading information into these articles. While, again, the exact articles which were used for this high school issue are not available for review or comment making it impossible to ascertain for certain. It certainly is possible, at least in theory, that fellow students may have gone to the relevant Wikipedia pages and quite simply changed the information to be inaccurate. Some students with a competitive nature can conceiveably do such a thing. Other students with a more vindictive nature might do similar. This brings up the interesting issue of reliability and verifiability of Wikipedia. An official policy of Wikipedia says, “Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.” (“Wikipedia: Reliable Sources”). While it is clear Wikipedia has such a policy regarding verifiability and reliability of information, the question must be begged is if this followed. 
	While Wikipedia has gotten a great deal of criticism for it’s perceived lack of reliability, a systematic study of Wikipedia by the journal Nature has concluded that Wikipedia articles are generally reliable. As quoted in USA Today, “Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that relies on volunteers to pen nearly 4 million articles, is about as accurate in covering scientific topics as Encyclopedia Britannica” (Goodin). Nature had fifty scholars and experts in various scientific areas assigned 42 articles within the area of their expertise. The scholars were not told of the source of the articles, but were instead asked to review the content and make comments regarding the reliability, lack of context or confusion in content. After thorough review, Nature concluded that while each Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica had errors, these errors were the exception and not the rule. As stated by Nature, “The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.” (Giles ). However, due to Wikipedia’s dynamic nature and speed of editing, as Nature describes, the editing and reliability for these articles could be quickly and easily improved, as well as adding or removing content for clarity. The Nature article wrought the ire of Encyclopedia Britannica who wrote scathing and very critical response to the Nature article in which they indicated that the Nature process was flawed, inconsistent and Encyclopedia Britannica stood by their authors and called for a complete retraction of the Nature article (“Fatally Flawed”). In a response letter, Nature stated, “We do not intend to retract our article.” (“Nature's responses”). 
	Additionally, there have been more attempts by other peer-reviewed journals to ascertain the reliability of scientific articles on Wikipedia. First Monday is a collection of free, peer-reviewed journals about the Internet. In a paper published on their website, it is stated, “The results show an increasing use of structured citation markup and good agreement with citation patterns seen in the scientific literature though with a slight tendency to cite articles in high–impact journals such as Nature and Science. These results increase confidence in Wikipedia as a reliable information resource for science in general.”  (Nielsen). Thus, by virtue of these two scholarly examinations of scientific articles on Wikipedia, one can assume that such articles are generally reliable.
	Utilizing the same method as First Monday, a single and randomly chosen Featured Article, Good Article, Copy Edited Article and non-Copy Edited Article will be examined to determine reliability. The references of each randomly chosen article will be examined and assessed for accuracy and use of professional and academic sources. This method should be sufficient in order to see if the general trend in Wikipedia is to accurately and appropriately attribute information using reliable sources. An associated policy of Wikipedia regarding so-called reliable sources states, “Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.” (“Wikipedia:Reliable Sources”) While this may be a Wikipedia policy, the so-called ‘malarial swamps’ often contain improper, little or no references. 
	The randomly selected Featured Article is List of counties in Arizona (“List of counties in Arizona”). This article is well developed with many images and charts. It gives a clear and seemingly objective history of the counties in Arizona, including years formed, populations, county seat and a brief history of each county. Included in the descriptions are links to full articles on each county, which contains more information. Despite being a Featured Article this article only contains six separate references. While some of these references are used more than once in the article, there remains only six sources total. The following is a copy of the references used:

Upon investigation of the first source published by Higginson Books and review of the company’s website, it was determined that this publishing house allows for self-publishing of books and advertises for a 6-8 week turn around on submitted material. Wikipedia’s Verifiability policy states, “Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.” (“Wikipedia:Verifiability”). Thus, this first source may not be considered reliable according to some. (Author’s note: this issue has been referred to the appropriate Wikipedia forum, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_counties_in_Arizona#Higgins_Books.) Scarecrow Press, which published a book used for several references, is an industry known publishing company and is considered very reliable. The rest of the sources are government sources, which are also considered to be reliable. In summary, the sources utilized for references are by-and-large reliable and acceptable, however at least one seems to violate Wikipedia policy. How this went on undetected is unknown and concerning. However, it would seem that most of the references used were done appropriately and were well selected.


----------



## bstone (Mar 10, 2009)

Wikipedia has several different classifications of articles. They are Featured Articles, Good Articles (also known as A Class Articles), copy edited articles (also called B and C Class Articles) and non-copy edited articles (also called Stub and Start articles) (“Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment”). Featured Articles have been thoroughly edited, sourced, expanded and deemed to live up to most scrutiny. Good Articles have been extensively edited, sourced and are considered to quite literally be in good condition. Project Rated Articles are those which have support from a particular project on Wikipedia and have been assigned a level of importance as well as a quality assessment. Copy edited articles are those with a small to moderate amount of information, usually with many references and sources and have often been copy edited for content, tone and readability. Lastly, non-copy edited articles are those which have not had any sort of copy edit review, assessment, or adoption by a project and are often in very poor non-encyclopedic form. To the casual observer, this represents a system in which certain articles are quite reliable and continues in a descending order or reliability from most to least. 
	Wikipedia has recently been the subject of various media reports. Some of these reports have either been highly supportive of Wikipedia as being generally reliable and others have been very critical. Beginning with the most critical a Scottish news source, Scotsman.com News, recently ran an article which described high school school students failing their exams at an increasing and alarming rate. The author describes, “The Scottish Parent Teacher Council (SPTC) said pupils are turning to websites and internet resources that contain inaccurate or deliberately misleading information…” (McLaughlin). This illustrates that the information being taken from Wikipedia and being used in for school reports and for exam preparation. However, the topics in which these students are taking information from is riddled with so many errors that the students are receiving failing marks on homework and exams. In response to this Wikipedia states, “While Wikipedia articles generally attain a good standard after editing, it is important to note that fledgling, or less well monitored, articles may be susceptible to vandalism and insertion of false information.” (“Wikipedia:Verifiability”). This brings up interesting and valid points. The first is possible vandalism to the articles in which these students were accessing. The Scotsman.com News does not include a list or topic in which these students were attempting to write about, thus an examination of possible vandalism is impossible. Vandalism is an endemic problem on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia servers do not require people to register an account before being able to alter and edit a page. However, a related policy about Wikipedia vandalism states, “Repetitively and intentionally making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia will result in a block or permanent ban.” (“Wikipedia:Vandalism”). Thus, Wikipedia does indeed have an official policy as to how it deals with vandalism. Those who vandalize Wikipedia can be blocked for short periods of time, extending longer or outright banned from the project altogether. The other main issue is the insertion of false or misleading information into these articles. While, again, the exact articles which were used for this high school issue are not available for review or comment making it impossible to ascertain for certain. It certainly is possible, at least in theory, that fellow students may have gone to the relevant Wikipedia pages and quite simply changed the information to be inaccurate. Some students with a competitive nature can conceiveably do such a thing. Other students with a more vindictive nature might do similar. This brings up the interesting issue of reliability and verifiability of Wikipedia. An official policy of Wikipedia says, “Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.” (“Wikipedia: Reliable Sources”). While it is clear Wikipedia has such a policy regarding verifiability and reliability of information, the question must be begged is if this followed. 
	While Wikipedia has gotten a great deal of criticism for it’s perceived lack of reliability, a systematic study of Wikipedia by the journal Nature has concluded that Wikipedia articles are generally reliable. As quoted in USA Today, “Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that relies on volunteers to pen nearly 4 million articles, is about as accurate in covering scientific topics as Encyclopedia Britannica” (Goodin). Nature had fifty scholars and experts in various scientific areas assigned 42 articles within the area of their expertise. The scholars were not told of the source of the articles, but were instead asked to review the content and make comments regarding the reliability, lack of context or confusion in content. After thorough review, Nature concluded that while each Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica had errors, these errors were the exception and not the rule. As stated by Nature, “The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopaedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three.” (Giles ). However, due to Wikipedia’s dynamic nature and speed of editing, as Nature describes, the editing and reliability for these articles could be quickly and easily improved, as well as adding or removing content for clarity. The Nature article wrought the ire of Encyclopedia Britannica who wrote scathing and very critical response to the Nature article in which they indicated that the Nature process was flawed, inconsistent and Encyclopedia Britannica stood by their authors and called for a complete retraction of the Nature article (“Fatally Flawed”). In a response letter, Nature stated, “We do not intend to retract our article.” (“Nature's responses”). 
	Additionally, there have been more attempts by other peer-reviewed journals to ascertain the reliability of scientific articles on Wikipedia. First Monday is a collection of free, peer-reviewed journals about the Internet. In a paper published on their website, it is stated, “The results show an increasing use of structured citation markup and good agreement with citation patterns seen in the scientific literature though with a slight tendency to cite articles in high–impact journals such as Nature and Science. These results increase confidence in Wikipedia as a reliable information resource for science in general.”  (Nielsen). Thus, by virtue of these two scholarly examinations of scientific articles on Wikipedia, one can assume that such articles are generally reliable.
	Utilizing the same method as First Monday, a single and randomly chosen Featured Article, Good Article, Copy Edited Article and non-Copy Edited Article will be examined to determine reliability. The references of each randomly chosen article will be examined and assessed for accuracy and use of professional and academic sources. This method should be sufficient in order to see if the general trend in Wikipedia is to accurately and appropriately attribute information using reliable sources. An associated policy of Wikipedia regarding so-called reliable sources states, “Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.” (“Wikipedia:Reliable Sources”) While this may be a Wikipedia policy, the so-called ‘malarial swamps’ often contain improper, little or no references. 
	The randomly selected Featured Article is List of counties in Arizona (“List of counties in Arizona”). This article is well developed with many images and charts. It gives a clear and seemingly objective history of the counties in Arizona, including years formed, populations, county seat and a brief history of each county. Included in the descriptions are links to full articles on each county, which contains more information. Despite being a Featured Article this article only contains six separate references. While some of these references are used more than once in the article, there remains only six sources total. The following is a copy of the references used:

Upon investigation of the first source published by Higginson Books and review of the company’s website, it was determined that this publishing house allows for self-publishing of books and advertises for a 6-8 week turn around on submitted material. Wikipedia’s Verifiability policy states, “Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.” (“Wikipedia:Verifiability”). Thus, this first source may not be considered reliable according to some. (Author’s note: this issue has been referred to the appropriate Wikipedia forum, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_counties_in_Arizona#Higgins_Books.) Scarecrow Press, which published a book used for several references, is an industry known publishing company and is considered very reliable. The rest of the sources are government sources, which are also considered to be reliable. In summary, the sources utilized for references are by-and-large reliable and acceptable, however at least one seems to violate Wikipedia policy. How this went on undetected is unknown and concerning. However, it would seem that most of the references used were done appropriately and were well selected.


----------



## bstone (Mar 10, 2009)

The randomly selected Good Article selected was Believers (“Believers”). This article is about a Japanese manga comic strip and documents the experiences of three people, two men and one women, left stranded on a desert island off the coast of Japan. The characters are only known by their code named of “Chairman”, “Vice-Chairman” and “Operator”. In the references section there are two references, as below:

The lack of additional references, according to the Discussion Page, is not due to poor editing but rather due sole to the lack of such sources existing. The first reference cited is a magazine called Pulp Magazine. Clicking on the link for this reference revealed that no such webpage exists. Several Google searches revealed no additional sources for this article. (Author’s note, this was also reported to the relevant Wikipedia noticeboard, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Believers#Reference_no_longer_exists). The second reference is for a book published by a large Japanese publishing company called Shogakukan Production Co. This book thus has the backing of a large and well known publishing company, which allows one to assume and assess the reliability of such a source as being strong. Soon after the dead reference was reported to the appropriate editors of Wikipedia, it was revealed that this article had previous been approved as a Good Article in 2006 but sometime in March 2008 it was removed from the this category. Currently, the article is internally listed as “Start Class”, which details an article as having little content and few or no references. However, the article header still clearly states that this article remains as a Good Article. Moreover, this article is still listed as such in the official Good Article list of Wikipedia. This type of contradiction makes for extensive confusion. (Author’s note: It was not until I spent two hours consulting with other veteran Wikipedia editors on an IRC channel that this was fully revealed. To date, the article still remains in this contradictory status, however.) While this manner of contradiction and confusion is frustrating, a quick and informal search of other Good Articles does not reveal such topical contradictions. However, the Believers article was selected at random and thus it was assessed. In the end, the information on the Believers article is not seemingly inaccurate and at least one of the references is from an industry known publisher. Thus, despite the confusion, the Believers can be considered an article which is generally reliable.
	The copy-edit article which was selected at random was A Coruña (“A Coruña”). This article is about a large city in northwestern Spain. This city has a long history and many landmarks. The Wikipedia article is filled with photos, images, charts and is well edited. The reference list includes:

The first reference, a pronunciation guide, is a very old document from the mid 1800s. It seems to be an authority on pronunciation and thus considered reliable. This is a Spanish language history book from the publisher Biblioteca Gallega. Due to its language there is no accurate way to easily determine reliability. Interestingly, reference four comes from the Encyclopedia Britannica. Whereas Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica have not always had the best of relationships, Wikipedia does entrust E.B. to be a reliable source and high quality. Finally, the last reference of Xunta de Galicia is a Spanish-language governmental website. It must be noted that at the time of access, this article was subject to a “semi-protection” by Wikipedia administrators. According to available logs, the article was locked in April 2008 due to vandalism of the article by a non-registered user. Semi-protection allows editors who maintain Wikipedia accounts to continue editing but prevents brand new accounts or those without such accounts to edit a semi-protected article. When the author approached a Wikipedia Administrator regarding the lengthy protection period, the administrator removed the block and stated that it should have been automatically removed, yet was not due to failure to set an auto-expiration date for the lock. In summary, this article makes use of references which are not immediately accessable to non-Spainish speakers and other encyclopedias. The use of non-English references casts a shadow of concern which would cause at least some parts of this article to be located in the malarial swamps of Wikipedia. However, the lengthy protection of this article demonstrates that Wikipedia administrators and editors are constantly on the look out for inappropriate edits and vandalism. As a result of this, random disruption to articles can not only be reverted but the articles can be protected in order to maintain reliability. 
	The final article to be assessed for general reliably is Brégnier-Cordon (“Brégnier-Cordon”). Brégnier-Cordon is a commune in eastern France. This article contains no references or sources. It is only one line long in content and has not been expanded or copy-edited. The article contains one map showing the location of Brégnier-Cordon and includes information regarding population, the mayor, population and land area. However, no historical information or local notability is discussed. The only information which would require references would be the vital statistics, however no such references are in this article. As a result of the utter lack of sourcing there is no confident way to determine the general reliability of this article. These sorts of “stub” articles that are not copy-edited are poor in quality and cannot be considered to be reliable. 
	Wikipedia exists and grows solely due to the volunteer efforts of thousands of people around the world. This collaborative effort to codify vast sums of human knowledge is an ambitious goal, but not without many hurdles to overcome. Among those hurdles are creating articles which are appropriately and properly sourced, combating vandalism and deliberately false edits and maintaining verifiability and a neutral point of view. While Wikipedia has demonstrated that it has the ability to produce high quality and highly reliable science articles it struggles with general reliability of non-copy edited articles. Articles of general reliability include Featured and Good articles. Copy edited articles not of the Featured or Good variety are difficult to assess for reliability. With more time, more volunteerism and effort Wikipedia articles will continue to improve, become more reliable and be a true source of human knowledge. 




















Works Cited 
“Believers.” Wikipedia. 28 July 2008.  4 Aug. 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Believers>.
“Bomis.” Freebase. 10 Feb. 2008.  22 July 2008 <http://www.freebase.com/view/en/bomis>.
“Brégnier-Cordon.” Wikipedia. 3 July 2008.  6 Aug. 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%C3%A9gnier-Cordon>.
“A Coruña.” Wikipedia. 18 July 2008.  5 Aug. 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Coru%C3%B1a>.
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Fatally Flawed:  Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature. britannica.com. Mar. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica. 29 July 2008 <http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf>.
Giles, Jim. “Special Report Internet encyclopaedias go head to head.” Nature (Dec. 2005). Nature. 15 Dec. 2005. Nature. 29 July 2008 <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html>.
Goodin, Dan. Associated Press 14 Dec. 2005: Tech Section. ’Nature’: Wikipedia is accurate. Electronic.
“List of counties in Arizona.” Wikipedia. 18 June 2008.  4 Aug. 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_counties_in_Arizona>.
Martyn, McLaughlin. “Falling exam passes blamed on Wikipedia ‘littered with inaccuracies.’” Scotsman.com News [Edinburgh] 21 June 2008. 22 July 2008 <http://news.scotsman.com/education/Falling-exam--passes-blamed.4209408.jp>.
“Nature’s responses to Encyclopaedia Britannica.” Nature (Mar. 2006). 29 July 2008 <http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/index.html>.
Nielsen, Finn Arup. “Scientific Citations in Wikipedia.” First Monday (May 2007). 29 July 2008 <http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_8/nielsen/>.
Wikipedia. “Wikipedia:Verifiability.” Wikipedia. 21 July 2008.  22 July 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy>.
“Wikipedia:About.” Wikipedia. 18 July 2008.  18 July 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About>.
“Wikipedia:Reliable sources.” Wikipedia. 4 Aug. 2008.  4 Aug. 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS>.
“Wikipedia timeline.” Wikimedia Foundation. 11 May 2008.  22 July 2008 <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia#Prehistory_.28_-_2001.29>.
“Wikipedia:Vandalism.” Wikipedia. 22 July 2008.  22 July 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism>.
“Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment.” Wikipedia. 6 Aug. 2008.  7 Aug. 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment>.


----------



## karaya (Mar 10, 2009)

Don't you think a link for all of this would have been sufficient?  We seem to be getting off topic here.  This was a thread about Universal Health Care, but seems to have drifted into a Wikipedia history lesson.


----------



## bstone (Mar 10, 2009)

karaya said:


> Don't you think a link for all of this would have been sufficient?



oy, you're right, sorry


----------



## Melbourne MICA (Mar 10, 2009)

karaya said:


> At first, Melbourne, I thought you were somewhat serious about opening a discussion on Universal Health Care, which you've devoted some extensive time on this subject in a previous thread. But, now you start a new post on this thread with an absolutely irrelevant opening paragraph that contained the above comment.
> 
> Just what are you really doing here? Opening some intelligent, thought provoking conversation about Universal Health Care? We all seemed to have been fooled by believing that was your intent, because it is clear you have an agenda and you just couldn't resist advancing it a notch here with your ludicrous and obtuse analogy.



Firstly no agendas Karaya. We had a similar discussion as you'll recall last time and I make the point that those who argue about where their taxpayer dollars are spent should look closely at where they are already spent and then decide if spending them on a health system for everyone is such a bad alternative.

(On the military thing perhaps not the best analogy to draw though we could get bogged down on debate about the worlds biggest arms dealers and who gets their weapons and for what they are used, foreign policies of various countries and how their military are used and why if you like. Though I am surprised you find the idea such a thing happening is ludicrous). 

So I will make the following points relative to some of the arguments against universal health care already put here. 

The first being who deserves it - "why should you have to have your money spent on such and such, smokers, drinkers, obese people...." - more than a few posters have used this argument. This whole arguemnt becomes a convoluted maze too easily used to avoid spending on anyone and to ensure money stays where it currently is. (I'll let you decide who's got all the health dollars at the moment).

Making value judgements on groups, classes, categories or even individuals on any basis including medical gets us nowhere and has the whiff of prejudice about it. Besides as I understand it that's exactly what private health insurers are doing now. Looking for ways to deny claims seems to be the stock and trade of some (many/most?) for-profit health insurers. And there are many excuses that can be used if you have a good legal team writing the contracts.

Value for money and competition also comes to mind. 

What do you really get for your private health insurance dollar? Private cover is limited both by the desire of the insurer to avoid giving cover against items of the greatest cost over the longest time and by the size of the premium the customer is prepared to pay. If premiums are too high customers go elsewhere and smaller insurers can't compete thus you end with with the market dominated by the biggest mega players. United Health Care group has around 22million customers and Anthem about 28million as eg's

As premiums rise customers drop away pushing them up further. The higher they go the less affordable they become. At the same time the remaining providers tighten their claims portfolio even further. With the advent of managed health in the 19080's (HMO's) as I understand it this is precisley the problem as the underwriters sought to tighten the belt with the expansion of services.

This link talks about market share implications.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/23/6/11.pdf

So it costs more and you get less and less for your dollar. At the same time these insurers (their majority shareholders in fact) are raking in billions with the reduced competition pooling the money in their favour.

Now a universal system has the following benefits as I see it

* It isn't reliant on competition
* It can continue to run irrespective of economic circumstances (for the most part)
* It is centrally regulated so its the same across the board
* It includes care measures not influenced by profit motive
* It doesn't disciminate on any basis (if it did this would breach a governments own consitutional provisons or laws)
* It can be means tested (where a tax or levy is the payment provision) so the poorest pay nothing and the richest the biggest levy.
* It can be applied to all hospitals no matter where you are in the country (ie items of care are rebateable everywhere even at a private hospital, clinic, pharmacy etc)
* It can inlclude elective and day procedure services.
* It can include a system of prescription product subsidy like our PBS here. (This is a biggy - huge expenditures on drugs for patients - food or medicine stuff?)
* Can include direct provision of service as well as insurance funding rebates eg public teaching hospitals with A&E services and many other outpatient services
* Public hospitals can participate directly in R&D with taxpayer funding guaranteed
* Where a concordat is reached and provisions agreed upon, public systems also include the very best physicians and surgeons who must proivde a porportion of their time in the public system whilst also able to make money from private clients outside the public system as well.

There's plenty more. Like any system it depends on how well it is run and managed, there are problems inherent to it but at the end if the day when crunch time comes or even for minor ailments you don't have to destroy the family budget to care for your family.

Hope that convinces you I don't have some secret agenda Karaya?

Cheers

MM


----------



## karaya (Mar 10, 2009)

Melbourne MICA said:


> Hope that convinces you I don't have some secret agenda Karaya?


 
Nope, not at all. Why can't you just stay on topic about this thread's topic, Universal Health Care? Why can't you make your points without injecting what is obviously _your_ political agenda on a matter totally unrelated to this discussion? 

How could anyone who claims they have no agenda make the following statement while responding to who should get Universal Health Care? 


Melbourne MICA said:


> Should pts with mental illness, illegal immigrants, convicts like murderers and pedophiles, the soldiers wounded in that secret military raid that blew up "terrorists" but killed 50 children in the process all get universal free health cover +/- health insurance?


 
I could have thought up a thousand examples and done so without coming across with such an out of balance and extremist example as yours. I do have my politics like everyone else, but I do make every effort to keep my agenda out of the conversation at hand, unless of course it is in fact itself the conversation at hand.

No, your little "subliminal" messages I still find quite ludicrous as to how they relate to this thread, including the comment about "the worlds biggest arms dealers." You seem to be stuck in one gear.

However, I will shift gears here for a moment. I did find your last response on Universal Health Care insightful and thought provoking and worthy of my time to digest and consider your points. Well done!

I may not completely agree with your Universal Health Care views, but you clearly have given me some points to consider and I'm sure others will too. It is too early to fully grasp what the full details of a proposed Universal Health Care by the President, but I'm sure as that unfolds, more discussions here will ensue.


----------



## enjoynz (Mar 10, 2009)

Melbourne MICA just a matter of interest as far as health care in Aussie goes.
What Medical services do you get for your tax payers dollar?

I had started a post in the EMS Lounge about the US healthcare system not long before you did yours,
and later posted a link as to what we get for our dollar in NZ.
Just wanted to see the comparison.

Cheers Enjoynz


----------



## daedalus (Mar 10, 2009)

karaya said:


> Don't you think a link for all of this would have been sufficient?  We seem to be getting off topic here.  This was a thread about Universal Health Care, but seems to have drifted into a Wikipedia history lesson.



I think bstone kindly provided us with his own original work, I do not think that the document was available by link.


----------



## JonTullos (Mar 10, 2009)

Let me first say that I respect all opinions and I don't hate on someone because of their feelings on whatever subject.  Now... I am not for universal health care.  Simply:  There's no such thing as a free lunch.  Somebody has to pay for it and guess who that will be.  Here's a hint:  Contrary to what some say, it won't be the rich.  My taxes would go up up up up.  Basically I'd be robbed at gun point in order to pay for someone else to have health care.  Granted, I would need it eventually but I might go to the doctor three or four times a year, if that.  I think the system does need some clean up but I don't want Big Brother getting involved beyond regulation and oversight.  Besides, you hear the horror stories out of Canada and European countries all the time.  I know we have our share but I don't think we should get to that point.  I also don't want Uncle Sam telling me what kinds of procedures I can and can't have and how long I'll have to wait for them.  If I wanted to be a socialist I'd move a socialist country.  No thanks.


----------



## Ridryder911 (Mar 10, 2009)

Let me put it simple. 

The Government handles your MVR and driver license. Do you really trust them with banks and health care? 

R/r 911


----------



## Melbourne MICA (Mar 10, 2009)

*Subliminal messages*



karaya said:


> Nope, not at all. Why can't you just stay on topic about this thread's topic, Universal Health Care? Why can't you make your points without injecting what is obviously _your_ political agenda on a matter totally unrelated to this discussion?
> 
> How could anyone who claims they have no agenda make the following statement while responding to who should get Universal Health Care?
> 
> ...




Look I appreciate the positive remarks and certainly hope it gives pause for thought. For all we know you may well have and be living under a universal health scheme within a couple of years. If you do you may well be asking we who have lived under them for years more questions in the near future.

But your comments about my hidden agendas and subliminal messages are off the mark and not fair. Last year I spent inordinate amounts of time praising the US, its role and importance in Western society. I also spoke of the US's role in directing health care and other agendas because of your size and influence. Some of the guys in this thread and last years are always talking up Americas dominance in research, drug developments etc etc.

Now I will not divorce the idea of where public money is spent from conversations about universal health care. It is fundamental to the question. And the cost of universal health care for 320 million people will be huge.

Where our governments spend reflects the vested interests and philosophical positions of all concerned. If you want me to say I despise the idea that public money is overspent by a country mile on weapons and egregious foreign policy I will and it is. This includes weapons sales the most opaque area of all.

If we are to complain about cost then how can we separate the trillions of dollars spent and made on arms sales, oil, wars etc from the equation? All these things are interlinked with each.

Last year I said about 1% of the military budget redirected could support a universal health system. This still holds true -the exact figure probably needs to be adjusted but the premise is correct. 

Indeed many of the arguments about "socialized" health systems are ideological and philosophical as much as the arguments for. Like last year I make the point the large vested interest groups including the very wealthy shareholders and companies raking in obscene sums of money have no interest in change and actively fight against it using lobbyists, the media, the politics of the right through  GOP congressman and senators etc- it happened in the mid nineties with the Clinton health package. It can (will?) happen again.

I would speak with utter conviction and passion my belief that we owe it to ourselves and each other to insist that our money is spent on things we believe in, are right and reflect our values. Sometimes, even often this means confronting unpleasant truths - and yes in my country as well.

I'm disappointed you would think I am playing some nasty little game given the efforts I made last year to be thoughtful and non partisan though I still appreciate your feedback and will take my fair share of polite criticisms on board. If I'm wrong I will do my best to admit up front.

Drop me a private line if you like and I'm happy to discuss it further.

I hope this reply contains some stuff still on topic. That's why I started it - it was such a great thread last year it was worth revisiting and judging by the passion of the debate I think it still is.

Cheers ^_^

MM

PS I forgot to comment on the "extreme" examples I made convicts, illegal migrants etc - perhaps bad examples but the point was to highlight the fact that when you start picking and choosing who fits and who doesn't things get ugly - this is pefect fodder for fundamentalists -play on prejudice and loathing - marginalised groups etc - by the way I have some links to articles on deficiences in health care assigned to hispanics including illegal migrants as an example. Sorry I got caught up in the other comments.

MM


----------



## ffemt8978 (Mar 10, 2009)

While I don't trust the government to do anything correctly, I'm against Universal Healthcare for the reasons that were listed by Rid and other.

I also believe that Universal Health care undermines two of the core values of this country.  Freedom of Choice, and Personal Responsibility.

The freedom to choose your own medical care, and your own medical care providers, and the responsibility of accepting the consequences (good and bad) for your choices.

Once our government gets involved, we will be on the classic slippery slope.  The government will start to mandate certain behaviors and practices in an effort to reduce the costs associated with medicine.  Then they'll go on to make certain habits, recreations, and other things that are deemed unhealthy illegal.


----------



## Sasha (Mar 10, 2009)

> The government will start to mandate certain behaviors and practices in an effort to reduce the costs associated with medicine. Then they'll go on to make certain habits, recreations, and other things that are deemed unhealthy illegal.



How do you figure? I don't think that's the case in countries that already have it.. Canada, England, Poland, just to name a few!


----------



## ffemt8978 (Mar 10, 2009)

Sasha said:


> How do you figure? I don't think that's the case in countries that already have it.. Canada, England, Poland, just to name a few!



Because they don't have our political system.  It is not an accurate comparison without that.


----------



## Melbourne MICA (Mar 10, 2009)

enjoynz said:


> Melbourne MICA just a matter of interest as far as health care in Aussie goes.
> What Medical services do you get for your tax payers dollar?
> 
> I had started a post in the EMS Lounge about the US healthcare system not long before you did yours,
> ...



That's a good question and I think I could only answer it in part given I only have personal experience with soem of the services.

Still I'll think of as much as I can. Thsi will not be a text book interpretation of our medicare system - I maybe way off the mark in soem respects.

The system has two parts.

There are free or near free public services and rebates for services outside the public system. There is also the PBS system of course that covers prescription pharmaceuticals. There are also benefits in the welfare system covering health care areas that are arranged via the tax system. These are means tested.

* All care in an ED department of a public hospital free - this also inlcudes surgical and related services utilised as a result of the emergency. This may well include cardiac and other specialist care eg for AMI's.
* There are no fees when you walk in the door like the private ED's
* Medicare provides a rebate up to the scheduled fee - I don't know how this is worked out but it is a government organised listing of fees for all medical services. Doctors may choose to charge only the scheduled fee or go beyond it. But they will only receive the schedualed fee payment from the government (medicare levy)  and the remainder from the patient. Thus you may visit a "Bulk Billing" doctor (GP) and pay nothing or go to another and get anywhere from about 50-85% back depending on the services provided.
*There is some dental cover (mainly for othodontic surgery type stuff I think) but this is hamstrung by waiting lists as are many elective and non emergency surgeries. 
* If you are a pensioner/health care card holder you can use the PBS and pay peanuts for often incredibly expensive meds. eg our boy has ADHD so we get family carers allowance and PBS for his meds - Ritalin usually $50 - we pay $5.
* Some medical equipment purchase or hire is subsidised under medicare but I couldnt be very specific - I'm not sure exactly.

Medicare is Australia wide of course and is no different from state to state.

Ambulance is not covered under medicare but subscriptions are cheap about $100/year for a family -all services inlc air transport anywhere in Aus.

Thats a start - I'm sure ther's more.

MM


----------



## yogakat (Mar 11, 2009)

just a question...who gets the privilege of deciding who is and is not worthy of receiving healthcare?  the same people that said that women weren't capable of voting?  the same people who said that certain minorities didn't deserve equal rights?  partitioning off certain elements of society is a slippery slope...be careful.  and remember, there are many exceptions to every rule.  i know many highly educated (some PhDs) and hard working (40+ hours per week) people with no healthcare coverage because they can't afford it...they are one major illness/incident away from losing everything.  not everyone without insurance abuses the system...and not everyone with insurance doesn't.


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 11, 2009)

yogakat said:


> just a question...who gets the privilege of deciding who is and is not worthy of receiving healthcare?



Me.


In all honesty, it should come down to one simple principle; 
If you pay in, you can get.  If you don't pay in, you're a leecher and don't deserve it.


IE; part time 16 y/o can get it... 40 y/o that just sits on his butt all day should not.  Really, it's just that simple.


----------



## Veneficus (Mar 11, 2009)

Sasha said:


> How do you figure? I don't think that's the case in countries that already have it.. Canada, England, Poland, just to name a few!



Poland does not have socialized healthcare.


----------



## Veneficus (Mar 11, 2009)

Linuss said:


> Me.
> 
> 
> In all honesty, it should come down to one simple principle;
> ...




Can you people hear yourselves?

You are medical providers? Maybe you can do medicine, nursing, or whatever “profession” you are in a favor and leave it?

You are picking out who is worthy of who should receive care? Tell me? Do you have a final solution for those unworthy of society in your 4th Reich?

News flash:

Many people who would love to have insurance who work hard do not have it. Not only that, they are not entitled to help under the law today. The guy working the grill full time down at McDs can’t afford it. The 145 people just layed off from Akron General Hospital can’t afford it. The people who had a job yesterday but not today cannot afford it. The lady who waits tables down at Denny’s for 30 years cannot afford health insurance, and she has to put up with all of our crap and a lot of stuff you’d probably quit over.

 Perhaps all of you high society types should try looking a prostitute who had to give up more than you ever will to eat and pay rent and tell her she now has HIV? Watch all the hope drain from her face. Listen to her plead “my god what else do I have to give?” Maybe you should see the factory worker who makes $8 an hour talk with his wife over how they will pay for the braces for their kid to give them a better life. Maybe you should spend a day out in the field picking corn for a few $ under minimum wage to send to you family who you haven’t seen in ages in another country so they can eat.  Worried about being deported and losing that income over a job you wouldn’t ever take.

There are not enough jobs in the world for everyone to make a middle class living. Last I heard it would take the resources of 7 planet Earths. The people who fall below that are no less than you. Now you will spout some crap about how people choose to be lazy. When you grow up in the hood as a female and you are expected to have sex by 12. When you go to a school that has 40 year old textbooks, when “bettering” yourself means a job as a nurses aid, if you can find the time to study for it with your substandard education (provided by those who don’t feel they should have to pay for you) between taking care of your 3 kids. Might I remind you your primary education unless you went to a private school was paid for people who may not have had kids, or whos kids were graduated, because they cared about everyone, not just themselves.

You people have a lot to say about “low lifes” but you have no idea what their life is like. You have a lot to say from up there on your pedestal, perhaps you don’t realize the fortune you have, that many others do not share in it. Then to turn around and deem them unworthy? Do you sit around and talk about how you would like to go help poor people in others countries for charity now? To make their lives a little better?

Guess what? They exist in the US. Selling drugs is a living for them, stealing gets them by. You probably have what you do because society decided it cares for people even though you obviously don’t. If it was pay to play how many EMS workers would have a job? How many nurses owe their salary to medicare/medicade? If we didn’t tax people you wouldn’t even have a fire department, and how often do you need them? 

In the US personal responsibility is not a universal moral. (or there wouldn’t be laws for helmets, seatbelts, and smoking) The idea if you can pay you can have it is how many countries operate. I’ll bet most of you couldn’t even survive outside of your little town. But what is an American value is that “All men are created equal” Yes, I remember reading that somewhere. Something about inalienable rights. For supposedly “educated” people and “Gurus” you don’t seem very smart.  For “experienced” people, your experience seems gravely limited. 

Today I am ashamed to call you my peer. To borrow a phrase:  “You have been measured, and have been found wanting.”

I truly hope one day you find yourself on the down and out side, so somebody can talk smack about how unworthy you are.


----------



## karaya (Mar 11, 2009)

Veneficus said:


> You are picking out who is worthy of who should receive care? Tell me? Do you have a final solution for those unworthy of society in your 4th Reich?


 
Tsk, tsk.  Too bad... your 4th Reich remark just invoked Godwin's law.  

You loose on this one.


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 11, 2009)

So Vene, tell me, people who contribute absolutely NOTHING to taxes should be able to reap the benefits?  How does that make sense?


It's one thing to be a child who's parents pay taxes.  But if you're a full grown adult and you don't pay taxes, you simply do not deserve the benefits of this country because you don't contribute to it.


I'm not saying only people that can afford health insurance should get it; I'm saying, and I'll make this easy on you, that if nationalized health care came a reality, ONLY THOSE THAT PAY TAXES SHOULD GET IT.






You have no idea on how my life was in the past 20 years.  You don't know where I'm from, how I was raised, if I was in poverty or a rich kid.  You don't know if I grew up in ghetto or the richest part of Manhattan.  You don't know if my parents were drugees or alcoholics.  Hell, you don't know if I'M a drugee or alcoholic.  So please, don't make any such assumption, as you appear to be an ignorant fool when you do.



Don't you EVER dare tell me I don't care about people or my country.  I joined the military at 18 to do my duty and got injured.  Have you ever joined?  I'm in EMS to help people, that doesn't mean I have to feel pity for those who refuse to help themselves.


----------



## BossyCow (Mar 11, 2009)

I am for socialized medicine. I am also for socialized education. If we look at the Netherlands you can see an example of a country that has both and has done it well. 

Those who say that socialized medicine takes away our choices are missing something. What 'choice' is available to the working poor? When the mill closes or you are injured and can't work? 

My 20 YO son (who is insured) just recently developed a staph infection in his knee. Since the last time he was seen by a doctor was at the pediatric clinic, I called my physician for an appointment. I was told that the soonest they could get him seen would be in September, and if that wasn't sufficient, I should take him to the ER. Now, what if he wasn't insured? What happens when he finishes school and has to drop off our insurance? 

To ask if the indigent, criminal and drug user is entitled to the same level of care as someone who works hard for their benefits.. I have to answer an unequivical yes. Basic human dignity is not a work earned benefit. It takes nothing away from me, my work ethic or my accomplisments to guarantee that all are treated for their illnesses. Perhaps it was my upbringing. But I believe that those with assets and resources have an obligation to assist those without.  "And now abides faith, hope and charity, these three but the greatest of these is charity (1 Corinthians 13:13).”


----------



## Veneficus (Mar 11, 2009)

karaya said:


> Tsk, tsk.  Too bad... your 4th Reich remark just invoked Godwin's law.
> 
> You loose on this one.



I would have made the comparison of Tamils in Sri Lanka, Treatment of the Irish by the British, The Russian's of the Ukranians, The Romans about Western Europeans, both sides in Israel and Palistine struggle, Tibetans and Chinese or any host of antagonists but I wanted to keep it simple. You can even find examples within a society, such as the Indian Caste system, or the Japanese feudal system.

From many of the comments I have seen, it doesn't appear more subtle examples would even be understood.

Anytime a subset of a populous gets villified, history points out it is the first step of persecution. Similar to referring to people as "animals" or "barbarians." 

After the fact everyone sits around and wonders "How could that have happened?" "how could people get to that level?" The methods and results are reproducable. 

When healthcare providers determine who is deserving based on their role in society, it is a very sad day.


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 11, 2009)

I'm sorry, but it's just stupid to give someone something that does not deserve it.

If you won't work to better yourself, why in the hell should I give up my money that I worked for, just so you can get help for a disease that was caused by your illicit drug use?



Bossy, I was brought up the same way as you: to give what you have.  But that does NOT mean helping any and all without thought.  I helped every other weekend at a soup kitchen in Detroit.  I can tell you from experience some of the people who went there, went there not because they were homeless, but because it was free food.  THEY don't deserve help.


----------



## Sasha (Mar 11, 2009)

> If you won't work to better yourself, why in the hell should I give up my money that I worked for, just so you can get help for a disease that was caused by your illicit drug use?



What about those who cannot work? What about those with diabetes, cancer, ALS?

And who are you to decide why someone does or does not deserve health care? It's "your money" until the government takes it away in taxes, it is no longer "Your money". Why, if I have no children, should I pay taxes for schools? If I don't use the public library, I should be taxed for it? If I never call 911, my taxes should go to supporting fire stations? Because in the long run it does a greater good.

I'm almost shocked and a little disgusted at some of the things being said on this thread.


----------



## enjoynz (Mar 11, 2009)

Well I'm in my middle forties and sitting at home....so looks like I fit your category for a lazy person that doesn't deserve healthcare!
 Oh hang on a minute....what about the taxes I've paid for the last 30 years while working!!!!!
In those 30 years I have never thought once that my taxes are wasted on those that don't work or pay taxes!.
Those taxes are to cover myself and my family, so when we need help, we get it!
What would happen if you were hit by a car at your next MVC....would you think there is my income gone, how am I going to get by now?
Who is going to pay for my rehabilitation? The fact that I'm never going to work again? Or do you just sue the person who hit you....for money they don't have either?

These systems in other countries have worked for a very long, long time....ok we have some long waiting lists for treatments at times....but at least we get on them.
There are things in health and education we still have to pay for...but at least our quality of life is better than many, because the Country works together and every family has a chance to better themselves!

Another thing....what if your brother or cousin was that obese smoking ETOH person....would you say...no he doesn't deserve healthcare?

Have a heart American and work together to bring your country back to the Proud Nation she once was!!!!
Defencing her is one thing....helping your fellow man is another!

Cheers Enjoynz


----------



## Veneficus (Mar 11, 2009)

Linuss said:


> So Vene, tell me, people who contribute absolutely NOTHING to taxes should be able to reap the benefits?  How does that make sense?.



Does that include people who get all of the tax they pay back? How about the people who get earned income credit, not only do they get it all back, they get extra on top of it. I do not benefit from that, I would wager neither do you. But if you do not give people who have nothing help, they will never be able to give back. Consider the sociology of family inheritence as pointed out by mycrofft in another post. It takes several generations for people to accumulate enough wealth to rise out of poverty. They may not have had much to begin with. It will take some more generations than others. Some people do not even know how to escape the poverty cycle. As I said, it is easy for people who have had opportunity, who recognize opportunity, to look at those without and deem them unworthy. There is just more to the circumstance of poverty than getting a job. 



Linuss said:


> It's one thing to be a child who's parents pay taxes.  But if you're a full grown adult and you don't pay taxes, you simply do not deserve the benefits of this country because you don't contribute to it.



Contributon is extremely subjective. Does a stay at home mom who does not have outside employment contribute less to society than say a 25 year old male who works 90 hours a week? What if that mom is on welfare? Does she not benefit society by attempting to properly raise her children?



Linuss said:


> I'm not saying only people that can afford health insurance should get it; I'm saying, and I'll make this easy on you, that if nationalized health care came a reality, ONLY THOSE THAT PAY TAXES SHOULD GET IT.



That sort of defeats the purpose of nationalized healthcare. Many college students do not pay taxes, should they be excluded? It is a complex world, simplicity does not do it justice. You are paying for medicade, both for disabled people and people without work, should those disabled be cut from the rolls too? I doubt you receive any benefit from medicade.



Linuss said:


> You have no idea on how my life was in the past 20 years.  You don't know where I'm from, how I was raised, if I was in poverty or a rich kid.  You don't know if I grew up in ghetto or the richest part of Manhattan.  You don't know if my parents were drugees or alcoholics.  Hell, you don't know if I'M a drugee or alcoholic.



Does it somehow matter? Neither your nor my history gives either of us the right to determine who is worthy in society and who isn't.I don't support socialized medicine because people deserve or don't. I support it because it is the only economically realistic way to maintain the health of a society as demonstrated around the world. If one citizen is entitled, then all should be entitled, based on citizenship not revenue generating ability.

Without health the amount of producers in society diminishes. That means us working people have to pay more for them since our society has decided we don't want corpses laying where they fall because they could not afford care. In all the numbers I have seen not put out by an insurance lobby over the last 8 years, socialized medicine will cost you less than you are paying now, for everyone to benefit.



Linuss said:


> So please, don't make any such assumption, as you appear to be an ignorant fool when you do.



There are many crazy, ignorant fools I wouldn't mind being grouped in with. Musashi is one of them, simplemindedness appears foolish to me.



Linuss said:


> Don't you EVER dare tell me I don't care about people or my country.



All the people or some of the people? How many would you leave to die who don't pay taxes? How many would you help pay from your own pocket for the betterment of society at large? At least twice in this post and 3 times in this thread you have said you don't support that. If you don't want me to think that way, don't say it. 



Linuss said:


> I joined the military at 18 to do my duty and got injured.  Have you ever joined?.



I am well aware of the psychological dogma of serving and sacrificing for country. Infact I remember in bootcamp the company commander telling us to lay down and pretend we were dead and how much such a sacrifice would mean while blasting a recording of America the beautiful. 

Furthermore, if my knowledge of history serves me, the very word "soldier" comes from the coin that they were paid by the Romans for serving in the legion. It had nothing to do with loyalty to country outside of a profession in society. I also knew that little tidbit prior to enlisting. So when I "volunteered" aka signed an enlistment contract, I knew very well that any sacrifice I might endure was not only simply an occupational hazard, but was more for the whims of those who needed violent solutions to their problems than it would be for my country. 

"The true nature of war is to serve itself" -Clausewitz.

I am sorry to tell you all the "leadership types" that always praise your sacrifice are paying you little more than lip service. If you doubt it look at veteren care since Korea, I think it is absolutely appaling and tremendously insulting, but you don't see society holding a protest and demanding better do you? Maybe a few people here and there. Are the homeless vets paying taxes? Should we add to the list tax payers and veterens? The point is you can't fairly determine who should be included or excluded.

Moreover, nowhere in my enlistment contract, written, or verbal responsibilities did military service confer upon me the authority to judge the value of a human being.

Don't be so quick to judge who is worthy and who is not. Because there is probably somebody higher in society with more influence than both of us together who could judge neither of us worthy and often do. You think for a second my health insurer gives a crap about me? You think they wouldn't deny me treatment in a heartbeat because they didn't think I was worth spending money on treatment for? Think it can't happen to you? Look at the spending for veterns health benefits compared to the costs over years. You really think the former CO of Walter Reed didn't know the conditions injured soldiers were in? Yea, he took the fall for it, but you honestly think if his budget was enough he would have allowed his troops to live like that?

have a look at this: http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/77867/

look at how Nam vets were treated by the society they "sacrificed" for. Many of them were conscripted, they didn't "volunteer." I also very much doubt Vietnam was a threat to the security of the USA. I don't like what happened to them, but the tax paying society still doesn't seem to care. Go ahead and start asking republican represenatives to support a tax increase to help the wounded soldiers they "support and honor" and see where that gets you.



Linuss said:


> I'm in EMS to help people, that doesn't mean I have to feel pity for those who refuse to help themselves.



A small percentage compared to those who cannot help themselves. You don't beat a child who doesn't know how to tie a shoe for not tying it properly. You have to be better, guide, and use time and resources on them. Sure there are people who don't want to help themselves, but after many years of helping the poorest, I have found that those who don't want help are few, but like in many aspects, the minority are the ones who receive the most attention.


----------



## BossyCow (Mar 11, 2009)

Linuss said:


> I'm sorry, but it's just stupid to give someone something that does not deserve it..







> THEY don't deserve help



Deserve? Who doesn't deserve the right to medical care? I'm sorry, I don't see this as something you earn or deserve.


----------



## enjoynz (Mar 11, 2009)

enjoynz said:


> Defencing her is one thing....helping your fellow man is another!
> 
> Cheers Enjoynz



Sorry just saw my typo...That should have read...Defending her is one thing....helping your fellow man is another!

Veneficus has some very valid comments....I think we become very self centred in life and judgemental...sometimes we all need to sit back and have a good look at ourselves!

Enjoynz


----------



## JonTullos (Mar 11, 2009)

Sasha said:


> What about those who cannot work? What about those with diabetes, cancer, ALS?



There are programs already out there for people who can not work (including my parents who are disabled - between them and my own experiences as a child I'm probably nearly an expert on such), some run by the government.  Why do we need to expand?  As I said, I am not comfortable with the government telling everyone (myself included) what doctor they have to see, what kind of care they can get, when they can get it and all that.  That's my biggest problem with the whole thing.  Would you be comfortable with the government telling you who you can and can't transport?  How about who's able to get ALS and who's not (regardless of their need of such)?  While some of this may seem far fetched, it's a real possibility under socialized medicine.  No thank you.

The government has proven useless in so many areas.  I don't trust it any further than I can throw the huge beast.  Why make it bigger?


----------



## ffemt8978 (Mar 11, 2009)

JonTullos said:


> The government has proven useless in so many areas.  I don't trust it any further than I can throw the huge beast.  Why make it bigger?



I agree.  I can't think of a single government program that was designed to help the people and that a) actually worked, and b) actually did what it was supposed to.


----------



## fortsmithman (Mar 11, 2009)

JonTullos said:


> what doctor they have to see



I'm in Canada where we have socialized health care.  The decision on what doctor to see is my own not the governments.


----------



## Melbourne MICA (Mar 12, 2009)

Linuss said:


> So Vene, tell me, people who contribute absolutely NOTHING to taxes should be able to reap the benefits?  How does that make sense?
> 
> 
> It's one thing to be a child who's parents pay taxes.  But if you're a full grown adult and you don't pay taxes, you simply do not deserve the benefits of this country because you don't contribute to it.
> ...




A very close friend of mine was an ambo. He wrecked his back on the job lifting a patient. Total disability. He can no longer work. His rehaibilitation took about four years or more and even now after about five surgeries countless physio sessions he is still a cripple physically. 

He is only now getting some work  - a few hours a week - his wife has had to work full time up until recently. He has not paid tax for years. He is on welfare. He can't work for more than a few hours a, because his back won't let him and b his welfare payments are linked to the hours he works and he pays no tax on that because he is under the tax threshold.

He was an ambo for around 25 years started when he was 16 as a cadet in South Australia.

He gets universal health coverage in this country whether he works or not and welfare assistance also. He is on a total disability pension. 

The point is not so much about tax but rather about how complex and unique each individual persons situation is and why it is bad idea to lump people together on the basis on very narrow parameters. 

The only issues that count with a health system is whether it is sustainable and whether it delivers the kind of health care each and every one of us would like for our loved ones. 

And I still think provision of that care reflects our charity, our compassion, our civility, our moral compass and mirrors the depth, intelligence and interconnectedness of our society.

Systems that benefit the few and privileged do not, in my opinion.

MM


----------



## BruceD (Mar 12, 2009)

Sasha said:


> ...Then you've got things HIV/AIDS,...


By the time AIDS patients need medications, most of them go on disability due to the extreme costs of the medications required to treat their disease, which can easily exceed $1200 per month.  So we are actually paying for these people already, just via a different system.



Veneficus said:


> Of course that doesn't include the fact of a 40 hour work week


I may have misunderstood your post, but I don't know of any surgeon in any specialty that works less than 90 hours per week except the ones that are partially retired.



Melbourne MICA said:


> his would have cost me thousands out of pocket - Even on my wage I could not have afforded that. It cost me virtually nothing under universal coverage


I would believe that it cost you virtually nothing at the time, but how much money have you paid in taxes toward the care you received?
There's no such thing as a free service.  Someone, somewhere (probably you) had to pay for it.



Veneficus said:


> ...Maybe you should see the factory worker who makes $8 an hour talk with his wife ...


I *have* to pick on you for this one.  I want to see a factory worker who makes $8 an hour!!  But that post *was* a bit of a foaming-at-the-mouth tirade wasn't it?



BossyCow said:


> Deserve? Who doesn't deserve the right to medical care? I'm sorry, I don't see this as something you earn or deserve.


Sorry Bossy, don't hate me for saying this...  I'm not sure you can claim something as a right that has to be provided by others, that would sort of be the equivalent of enslaving a segment of the population (medical workers).  It would probably be more appropriate to call it a 'moral obligation'.

-----
As for me...
I don't believe that government run health care would be the panacea that some view it.  
There is no way to provide all the medical care a society wants.  There would be rationing and waits.  There would *have* to be.

Would we get more for the money we already spend?  I don't know... my experience with government has been that it is inefficient, wasteful, and expensive. I would be more supportive of universal health care if it wasn't.

However, I'm very disinclined to turn over such a huge segment of not only the economy, but our very health to them. Especially because once it begins, there will be  no turning back, every deficiency within the system will be 'fixed' with more bureaucracy and every extra bureaucrat in the system is one more basically non-productive person sucking resources away from that which should go to treating patients.  

The only basis I have for judging how the government would handle health care is by looking at how it has handled everything else.

Stay safe all and remember...
ALL of us want what is best for ourselves, our families, and our country. The disagreement is only about what the ideal method of achieving our common goals is.

-B


----------



## Melbourne MICA (Mar 12, 2009)

*Take a deep breath*

I started this thread mainly because last years, pre Obama one was exhilarating and insightful. There were many many valid and excellent posts. I thought now he was in power many of you would be reflecting on the situation. It is also very topical - Obamas health care reforms are the topic in the media this week.

As ambos I thought you all might provide the most insightful comments and debate because we work in the middle of the system and right in the middle of peoples lives in their homes.

There is far too much anger out there.

Please don't get personal, vilify others or set your ideas in stone. Nobody is perfect and nobody is totally right on all the issues. None of us are economists either.

Please take a deep breath and treat each other decently and with respect.

MM


----------



## Shishkabob (Mar 12, 2009)

Some of you need to go back and re-read what I have stated in the past;

There is a HUGE difference between not being able to do something and CHOOSING not to do something.  Disabled = not being able to.  Laziness = choosing not to.

If someone is in a position outside of their control, such as lost a job, then yes, by all means I'll be the first to help them.  But if someone is in a position by their own conscious choices, such as a homeless man due to illicit drug use, I feel no pity.  


The old maxim holds true, no matter how you spin it;  help those who help themselves.


I'll phrase it a couple more ways just to be sure you're catching on.

If a gambling addict needs help paying his rent because all his money went to gambling, how would it be smart to give him money?  What's to say he wont gamble it?


If you're in school, would it be fair to take 10% off of your grade to pad another kids grade who didn't study for a test because he felt like playing on his PC instead?



Is this making ANY sense to you yet?  I'm not against helping people, I'm against helping those who don't deserve it and take advantage of the system.

I'll help the kid whos parents are drug addicts.  I'll help the spouse of said drug addict.  I will not help the drug addict until he makes an effort to quit that detrimental action.


----------



## Veneficus (Mar 12, 2009)

JonTullos said:


> As I said, I am not comfortable with the government telling everyone (myself included) what doctor they have to see, what kind of care they can get, when they can get it and all that. ?



Are you comfortable with an insurance company telling you?


----------



## EMTmom1218 (Mar 12, 2009)

*Let someone else pay for it*

My sister has not had healthcare probably since she was in her 20s and she's 56 now.  Her reason:  Why pay for it when I know I won't be refused.


----------



## JonTullos (Mar 12, 2009)

Veneficus said:


> Are you comfortable with an insurance company telling you?



If I really want to, I can choose another insurance carrier.  With some versions of universal healthcare that have been floated, we wouldn't have the right.  We would basically be handed an "insurance" plan and told that it's this or nothing.  Personally I like the right to choose.  I think that's a lot better than some government drone doling it out to me.


----------



## bstone (Mar 13, 2009)

EMTmom1218 said:


> My sister has not had healthcare probably since she was in her 20s and she's 56 now.  Her reason:  Why pay for it when I know I won't be refused.



For emergency services she won't be refused. However for non-emergency services she might be refused or subject to long delays.


----------



## Melbourne MICA (Mar 13, 2009)

JonTullos said:


> If I really want to, I can choose another insurance carrier.  With some versions of universal healthcare that have been floated, we wouldn't have the right.  We would basically be handed an "insurance" plan and told that it's this or nothing.  Personally I like the right to choose.  I think that's a lot better than some government drone doling it out to me.



Sorry to butt into your conversation with Venny but are we talking about a government subsidised health scheme?  A universal health scheme? Our Medicare system has nothing to do with being forced to take a package like normal insurnace. There are simply services and goods that are covered (listed) under the medicare insurance scheme  - you simply use them, give your medicare details (a card typically that has all your family on it as well) and you get a certain percentage (often all) of the cost of those services rebated to you. 

And you can make a claim on the cost in many ways of course, via the net at an Mecdicare office, by post etc. The good thing is, if you are poor or on various tax benefits categories you get full cover via your pension or health care card so the net cost is practically zero. If you are a little better off you can still get a healthy portion of the cost as a rebate. For guys like me this means paying up front for basic services like a GP visit or X ray and then claiming back - this is the fastest way.

Contrary to what many here think universal health care does not mean freebies across the board. It is a graduated rebate scheme that covers much but not all. It very much depends on what you use. If you go outside the public system (Like public hospital A&E depts) you pay some. If you use the public system its free - and open to everyone. So you do have a choice. 

If you want the full free public services, called "bulk billing services" , it may entail waiting be it ED (pts are triaged), for elective surgeries etc. Naturally this is the most criticised aspect of the system.

However if you are caught off guard, have a big emergency, private system can't handle it you go to a public A&E or other public health service. You can also elect to go private from the outset and still get some off (that is covered by medicare) but you choose where you want to go etc.

For emergencies the public system is far and away superior in all respects. The big public teaching hospitals have everything you may need. You can even start there then transfer to the private system later on if you want fluffy pillows, better tucker, and paintings on the walls of your ward.

The private surgeons and specialists all (have to) contribute a certain portion of their hours in the public system. So the care is of high standard.

Too much info, confusing? I'm not sure if many of the posters really follow how a universal health system works - at least the Aussie version which differs of course in some respects to the British and Canadian versions eg.

Happy to expand if others interested.

MM


----------



## Melbourne MICA (Mar 13, 2009)

*Who pays and how?*

Sorry one more thing. Our universal scheme is funded through a levy payable through your tax return. It's a percentage - 1.5%. Make lots of money you pay more - make less pay less.

I know, I know - there you go just taxpayers forking out you all say. 

Using the tax system has the advantage of casting the widest net across the population. It is also proportional according to means and more reliable in terms of collection of the levy because it goes through tax. The people who are working (contributing some here would say) but not earning much don't pay it because there is a tax threshold so the battlers on the minimum wage don't get slugged the levy nor apy at the GP's clinic.

Thats leaves, the unemployed, welfare recipients etc. Most of these people are people of character fallen on hard times. What's left is the true bludgers we all love to hate but these are few as a part of the whole.

The big drawback of such systems is they are large, expensive, complex and if not well run open to abuse.

As I said last year - you guys in the US need to show us all how to get such schemes really running sweetly with minimal loss or abuse - and you can do it. All you need is the will and to tell those who love to imply such schemes are one step towards some utopian socialist nirvana to stop ranting and listen for a while. Have a look, come up with a plan, trial it and see what you think.

If private insurance is best for the US so be it - But it sure don't look like its working so hot at the moment. Happy to stand corrected of course. 

MM


----------



## Veneficus (Mar 13, 2009)

I still like the british system better. 

The private US system doesn't work at all. It increases the labor costs of businesses that provide it, increasing overall product and service costs. Which makes such totally incompetative. This causes a loss of jobs and then a loss of insured people. Insurance coverage goes down, rates go up so that profit margins of insurance companies are maintained. Which will eventually price itself out of market. Well on its way already. People are then forced into our extremely inefficent safetynet. The most costly in all the world like over 16%. 

Most insurance tell you where you can go, what they will cover, and even how much of it. So even if you have insurance, one major illness and you are ruined. Most policies have a lifetime maximum of $1 million, which at our prices is easily reached. 

They also dictate prices to hospitals and physicians,which causes providers and agencies to mark up the non insured to cover the difference or take on so many patients nobody gets decent care. You also have to run as many procedures and diagnostics as possible, even if not really needed in order to bill for enough to make any money.

Universal healthcare is not a panacea, it is simply better than what we have now. Most of the drawbacks I hear people argue are biased propaganda or completely brainless.


----------



## Melbourne MICA (Mar 13, 2009)

Veneficus said:


> Universal healthcare is not a panacea, it is simply better than what we have now. Most of the drawbacks I hear people argue are biased propaganda or completely brainless.



And I think your last couple of sentences summed it up. What I am really excited about is there has never been a trully universal health system in the US. And you are the only western country that hasn't tried it. (I am aware of the Vets systems, armed services system and medicare/medicaid programmes)

For me what this means is the US will start from scratch - not always a bad thing. A clean slate. You will need to overcome some seriously entrenched political baggage to really give it a go. So when you do it will mean all sides will have embraced at least the idea of trialling it in a big way. A lot of political capital will be invested. So everybody has something to gain and lose.

Also there is untapped potential in the US to make a brand new universal system which incorporates the best elements of other systems and incorporates inputs from all the stakeholders even the private system.

Not only that, but the idea of a kind of "non capitalist" system on such a large scale - if I can put it that way - will be a revolution and evolution in thought in the US. You will start down a whole new path - no not to ruin. But to change for the better just from the exercise alone. A kind of synchronicity will be there. 

The butterflys wings flap in Washington and........

A renaissance for America. Lets hope so.

MM


----------



## yogakat (Mar 13, 2009)

check out this website...it's a link to 'Fresh Air' with Terry Gross on npr

this week they had an interesting set of interviews regarding the healthcare system in America...one is about a person with kidney disease and his sister, a healthcare correspondent, who helped him navigate the system...the other is about the bureaucracy of health care in America

enjoy...


http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13&prgDate=3-11-2009


----------



## Melbourne MICA (Mar 13, 2009)

*Gotta love private health*



yogakat said:


> check out this website...it's a link to 'Fresh Air' with Terry Gross on npr
> 
> this week they had an interesting set of interviews regarding the healthcare system in America...one is about a person with kidney disease and his sister, a healthcare correspondent, who helped him navigate the system...the other is about the bureaucracy of health care in America
> 
> ...



You just gotta love the bit about the short term policy renewals and his "pre-exiting condition". 

And you can bet this guys "short term policies" were marketed as a "flexible service........" or some other spin when in reality the insurers had just found another clever means to limit (deny) claims and add to profits and at the same time sell it as a competitive and affordable option for clients - until you used it of course.

MM

MM


----------

