Clinton unveils mandatory health care insurance plan

[beatupbrown]

universal health care says the same thing but with out the profit driven system.
http://www.supportiveoncology.net/journal/articles/0203220.pdf
220
www.SupportiveOncology.net

OBSERVATIONS​

European Cancer Deaths in Decline
Fewer people in Europe are dying of cancer now than a generation ago, according to two recent surveys reported by Nature News Service. Although survival rates are going up, so too is the number of new cases of cancer. In Britain, there are 12% fewer cancer-related deaths than there were 30 years ago, according to data from Cancer Research UK. The good news holds for a range of different cancers—the female death rate from breast cancer is down by 20%, and the male death rate from testicular cancer has fallen by 37%.
Deaths from stomach cancer are down by about half in most of Europe, according to research from the Institut Universitaire de Médecine Sociale et Préventive in Lausanne, Switzerland—a finding echoed by the Cancer Research UK study.
The reduced death rates are due to a combination of factors, says Peter Selby, director of the Cancer Research UK Unit at St. James’s University Hospital in Leeds. Antibiotics and better food-preservation techniques are helping to rid the world of Helicobacter pylori, a bacterium thought to cause stomach cancer. The number of smokers has dropped in some countries. Screening programs help to catch breast and cervical cancer early, when treatments may be more effective.
"The increase in survival rates and the fall in death rates are both encouraging," says cancer epidemiologist Michel Coleman of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. "But the risk of developing certain cancers is still increasing, and as the population grows and the age profile shifts toward the elderly, more people are being diagnosed with cancer than ever before."
"Around the world an estimated 10 million people every year find that they have cancer," Professor Coleman says. "Research funding needs to continue and accelerate so that more people survive the disease in the next generation."

 

[beatupbrown]

http://www.yesmagazine.com/article.asp?ID=1503
That means that the United States has been the unwitting control subject in a 30-year, worldwide experiment comparing the merits of private versus public health care funding. For the people living in the United States, the results of this experiment with privately funded health care have been grim. The United States now has the most expensive health care system on earth and, despite remarkable technology, the general health of the U.S. population is lower than in most industrialized countries. Worse, Americans' mortality rates--both general and infant--are shockingly high.

The United States spends far more per capita on health care than any comparable country. In fact, the gap is so enormous that a recent University of California, San Francisco, study estimates that the United States would save over $161 billion every year in paperwork alone if it switched to a singlepayer system like Canada’s.3 These billions of dollars are not abstract amounts deducted from government budgets; they come directly out of the pockets of people who are sick

There are two criteria used to judge a country’s health care system: the overall success of creating and sustaining health in the population, and the ability to control costs while doing so. One recent study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal compares mortality rates in private forprofit and nonprofit hospitals in the United States. Research on 38 million adult patients in 26,000 U.S. hospitals revealed that death rates in for-profit hospitals are signifi cantly higher than in nonprofit hospitals: for-profit patients have a 2 percent higher chance of dying in the hospital or within 30 days of discharge. The increased death rates were clearly linked to "the corners that for-profit hospitals must cut in order to achieve a profit margin for investors, as well as to pay high salaries for administrators."5

 

[wkmac]

What???? What politilcal candidate's health care "plan" have I championed? I really have no clue what this is about. I want no federal government health care. This would include medicare, but that is not what the Clinton mandatory health care insurance "plan" thread is about. I think it is a major invasion in my life for the federal government to tell me I have to have health care insurance. I do not bet against myself. I also do not think this is what our founders meant when they wanted a more perfect union. I also do not believe that our health care system is in a crisis mode.

I understand what a free market means but thank for trying to help me out. I still would prefer this. A free market will lower prices. A free market will force suppliers to become more efficient. The problem is when our government starts a social program it never ends it only grows. There are always unseen problems with government interference in the marketplace. Of course I understand we will not have a free market as long as people feel they need someone else to watch over them.

Anyway keep up the good fight. You are a killer bunny.

First off, sorry for the long delay in response and I did see your PM. We had a family emergency last week just as I was about to respond and then to compound things I've taken ill this week and just didn't have the strength to come out here and talk. I'm getting better but this response will be short and if need be I'll go further later when I feel better.

No you never championed a specific candidate but across the forum your posts suggest to me that come Nov. 08' you'll likely vote the repub. nominee, and it won't be Ron Paul either as I'm not sure you'd support him because of his War stance. It's a guilt by association as I see you because IMHO the only difference between the democrats and republicans as it pertains to going further towards a socialist model of governance is the repubs. tend to go towards it at a slower pace. Also the repubs. tend to follow more closely the Mussolini socialist model of Corporate socialism whereas the democrats follow a more Lenin type model of State socialism. Diesel in his post at #219 made several good points IMO and you should consider them in relation to your own expressed remarks. I'm certain that you believe in a free market but the question begs, how free are you willing to go? There is a purist thought out there as D pointed out which when it comes down to the bottomline seez both yourself and Diesel as they represent 2 political thoughts as being equally dangerous in the end because either way at the end of the day, an elite of small numbers of persons will have elevated themselves to a position that dictates to everyone else how they will live and think no matter what the consequences to you individually or even collectively among you friends and neighbors.

OK, that's all I can take for now so when I get to feeling better and you want more details of my perspective, I'll be more than happy and welcome the conversation. Diesel I want to respond to your post #210 but give me time as I just don't feel up to it right now.

I hope you guys never get this stuff cause it's kicking my arse!

 

[wkmac]

OK, this is off the topic of the political side of the healthcare issue but it does concern health and new findings related to cancer.

http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article3081843.ece

Not suggesting this is conclusive by any means just thought I'd pass this on as it is thought provoking IMO.

 

[blue efficacy]

Actually, she would mandate that everyone purchase heath care insurance. I don't want insurance! I priced it about five years ago when my wife retired and found that with our pre-existing conditions we would pay quite a bit. (She was the provider of our insurance while she worked) Generally, my wife and I are quite healthy and we decided to go it without. In the last five years, only in one year would I have received more in reimbursement that I paid in premiums and not a great deal more either. Part of this is due to the fact that my wife and I have negotiated our own discount for the treatment we receive. All of our doctors charge us what Medicare reimburses them. That is far below their stated rates. The local hospital allows 40% off if you pay the bill at the time of the procedure. Our drugs come from Canada, England or other countries. We also found that in India, you can purchase drugs at any pharmacy without a prescription and at extremely low rates. The quantities are not limited either. (Example, a package of 10 allergy drugs (claratin) cost us $1.15.) We also have the option of choosing any doctor we desire. We do not need a referral for care by a specialist. All our medical decisions are made by us, not some insurance company clerk.

I do believe that one of the problems in the USA is that employers have supplied coverage for most of their workers. Americans feel that top of the line health-care is their right. Those with insurance mostly never look at the charges as would one without insurance does and therefore, in many cases, insurance pays the top rate for their treatment. Of course many insurers have deals with certain doctors and hospitals but that forces the insured to use the facilities the insurance company dictates. In some (many cases), not the best or the most desirable decision. Although it will never happen, if no one had health insurance, I believe prices would be forced down by supply vs. demand. A true free market system. Of course this would have many other not so great side effects such as people going without treatment or taking the cheapest not the best treatment.

I don't believe that mandated health insurance is the answer but, unfortunately, I don't have any solution for this problem. I don't think "give it a try" is the answer either. Have you ever seen the government get into something and admit it was not a good idea and then pull out?

The benefit of insurance (private or government) is it distributes risk. Better to have a large group of people cover expensive medical problems for a few collectively than to stick a few people with an insurmountable cost.

Of course you have a fine idea if you're perfectly healthy and don't give a **** about those who aren't.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Another good example of how communist health care doesn't work.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58379

 

[Jones]

Another good example of how communist health care doesn't work.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58379

Medical tourism is a growing factor in the US as well:

Medical Tourism Takes Flight:

Woodman estimated that more than 150,000 Americans traveled abroad for health care in 2006. The number is projected to double in 2007, he said. "That 150,000 number is conservative," he said. "Some experts say 400,000."

 

[UPS Lifer]

Sammie,
You couldn't have said it any better. Hilary feels entitled. She is a politician's politician

God help us all if she gets in!

I'm still not sure who I am going to vote for....but I am sure who I'm NOT going to vote for!!!

Let's hear it for Hil