SICKO's story comfirmed!

July 16, 2007

July 16, 2007

Op-Ed Columnist

The Waiting Game

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President Bush. "I

mean, people have access to health care in America," he said last week.

"After all, you just go to an emergency room."

This is what you might call callousness with consequences. The White House

has announced that Mr. Bush will veto a bipartisan plan that would extend

health insurance, and with it such essentials as regular checkups and

preventive medical care, to an estimated 4.1 million currently uninsured

children. After all, it's not as if those kids really need insurance - they

can just go to emergency rooms, right?

O.K., it's not news that Mr. Bush has no empathy for people less fortunate

than himself. But his willful ignorance here is part of a larger picture: by

and large, opponents of universal health care paint a glowing portrait of

the American system that bears as little resemblance to reality as the scare

stories they tell about health care in France, Britain, and Canada.

The claim that the uninsured can get all the care they need in emergency

rooms is just the beginning. Beyond that is the myth that Americans who are

lucky enough to have insurance never face long waits for medical care.

Actually, the persistence of that myth puzzles me. I can understand how

people like Mr. Bush or Fred Thompson, who declared recently that "the

poorest Americans are getting far better service" than Canadians or the

British, can wave away the desperation of uninsured Americans, who are often

poor and voiceless. But how can they get away with pretending that insured

Americans always get prompt care, when most of us can testify otherwise?

A recent article in Business Week put it bluntly: "In reality, both data and

anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or

longer than patients living with universal health-care systems."

A cross-national survey conducted by the Commonwealth Fund found that

America ranks near the bottom among advanced countries in terms of how hard

it is to get medical attention on short notice (although Canada was slightly

worse), and that America is the worst place in the advanced world if you

need care after hours or on a weekend.

We look better when it comes to seeing a specialist or receiving elective

surgery. But Germany outperforms us even on those measures - and I suspect

that France, which wasn't included in the study, matches Germany's

performance.

Besides, not all medical delays are created equal. In Canada and Britain,

delays are caused by doctors trying to devote limited medical resources to

the most urgent cases. In the United States, they're often caused by

insurance companies trying to save money.

This can lead to ordeals like the one recently described by Mark Kleiman, a

professor at U.C.L.A., who nearly died of cancer because his insurer kept

delaying approval for a necessary biopsy. "It was only later," writes Mr.

Kleiman on his blog, "that I discovered why the insurance company was

stalling; I had an option, which I didn't know I had, to avoid all the

approvals by going to 'Tier II,' which would have meant higher co-payments."

He adds, "I don't know how many people my insurance company waited to death

that year, but I'm certain the number wasn't zero."

To be fair, Mr. Kleiman is only surmising that his insurance company risked

his life in an attempt to get him to pay more of his treatment costs. But

there's no question that some Americans who seemingly have good insurance

nonetheless die because insurers are trying to hold down their "medical

losses" - the industry term for actually having to pay for care.

On the other hand, it's true that Americans get hip replacements faster than

Canadians. But there's a funny thing about that example, which is used

constantly as an argument for the superiority of private health insurance

over a government-run system: the large majority of hip replacements in the

United States are paid for by, um, Medicare.

That's right: the hip-replacement gap is actually a comparison of two

government health insurance systems. American Medicare has shorter waits

than Canadian Medicare (yes, that's what they call their system) because it

has more lavish funding - end of story. The alleged virtues of private

insurance have nothing to do with it.

The bottom line is that the opponents of universal health care appear to

have run out of honest arguments. All they have left are fantasies: horror

fiction about health care in other countries, and fairy tales about health

care here in America.

July 16, 2007

'Sicko' leaves top Democrats ill at ease

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-movie22jun22,0,5962985.story?coll=la-home-center

Leading candidates are sidestepping direct comment on filmmaker Michael

Moore's proposals for universal healthcare.

By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Times Staff Writer

June 22, 2007

WASHINGTON - With the release of Michael Moore's "Sicko," a movie once again

is adding sizzle to an issue that's a high priority for liberal

politicians - this time comprehensive health insurance for all. But unlike

Al Gore's film on global warming, which helped rally support on an equally

controversial problem, "Sicko" is creating an awkward situation for the

leading Democratic presidential candidates.

Rejecting Moore's prescription on healthcare could alienate liberal

activists, who will play a big role in choosing the party's next

standard-bearer. However, his proposal - wiping out private health insurance

and replacing it with a massive federal program - could be political poison

with the larger electorate.

At a special screening in Washington this week, politicians, lobbyists,

media pooh-bahs and policy junkies flocked to see Moore's film. And its

slashing demand for action on an issue that voters care deeply about, and

Democrats hope to capitalize on, generated plenty of buzz. Moore hopes that,

after its general release June 29, "Sicko" will exert significant influence

on the presidential campaign.

Instead of greeting the film with hosannas or challenging it head-on,

however, the leading Democratic presidential candidates have sidestepped

direct comment on Moore's proposals.

Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois and

former Sen. John Edwards of South Carolina all have staked out positions

sharply at odds with Moore's approach. But none of them is eager to have

that fact dragged into the spotlight.

If Moore's fire-breathing proposal catches on among party activists, who

tend to be suspicious of the private sector and supportive of direct

government action, the candidates' pragmatic, consensus-seeking ideas could

look like weak-kneed temporizing - much the way their rejection of an

immediate pullout from Iraq has drawn heated criticism from antiwar

activists.

In "Sicko," the filmmaker calls for abolishing the insurance industry,

putting a tight regulatory collar on pharmaceutical companies and embracing

a Canadian-style government-run system.

Advocacy groups are already planning to use the film to pressure the

Democratic hopefuls.

"The candidates haven't sensed the political fever in this country that

fundamental change is called for in the healthcare system," said Rose Ann

DeMoro, executive director of the California Nurses Assn. "What we are going

to do is call on the candidates to reconsider their positions."

Stoking the passions of rank-and-file Democrats for a government takeover of

the healthcare system amounts to political folly, respond some liberal

veterans of Washington's healthcare battles.

"To presume that the private sector is going to sit idly by to see the

destruction of private coverage I think is a misreading of reality," said

Ron Pollack of the advocacy group Families USA. "I think the presidential

candidates understand that if healthcare reform is going to have a chance of

success, it will require bipartisanship and a balance of public and private

coverage. It cannot be the triumph of one ideology over the other."

Such a blending increasingly seems to be taking place in major federal and

state programs, including Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance

Program and Medicare. As employer-sponsored health insurance shrinks,

insurance companies have reinvented themselves as managers and middlemen for

government programs, said UC Berkeley health economist James Robinson.

For example, more than 60% of Americans enrolled in Medicaid, the

federal-state program for the poor, are now in some form of managed care,

compared with fewer than 25% in the mid-1990s. In California, Medicaid is

known as Medi-Cal.

"Whatever mix of private and public sources will increase the number of

people with coverage, the insurance companies would like it to be managed by

them," Robinson said in a recent interview. "They can work with Medicare,

they can work with Medicaid, they can work with employers, they can work

with whomever."

There's little room for such nuanced partnerships in "Sicko." If there's a

villain in the movie, "the villain is called the health insurance industry

of America," Moore told a Capitol Hill rally Wednesday. To laughter and

applause, Moore said he hoped the film would turn into a "going-away

present" for industry lobbyists.

"Sicko" uses the wrenching stories of individual Americans to compare some

of the worst failings of this country's system with a rosy perspective on

healthcare in Canada, Britain, France and even Cuba - a country that offers

healthcare for all but also imprisoned a doctor in the late 1990s for

speaking out against government failure to respond to an epidemic of a

mosquito-borne virus.

Moore investigates the dumping of hospital patients on skid row in Los

Angeles. He tells the story of a middle-class couple from Colorado who lost

their home and had to move in with their adult children because of medical

bills, even though they had insurance. A particularly sobering episode

involves a Missouri family in which the father is denied a medical procedure

that might have saved him from cancer.

Filmgoers also meet an uninsured American who accidentally sawed off two of

his fingertips and had to choose which one to have reattached, because he

couldn't afford to do both. Moore juxtaposes that story with that of a young

man in Canada who lost five fingers in an accident and had them all

reattached - without having to pay.

"It's quite effective, [but] it's not a documentary," Robert D. Reischauer,

one of Washington's leading health policy experts and a supporter of

coverage for all, said after viewing the movie.

"Policy propaganda," he called it.

For most Democratic presidential candidates (Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio

advocates a government single-payer program), it's more like a headache.

--

ricardo.alonso-zaldivar@latimes.com

July 16, 2007

On Jul 16, 8:30 am, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> July 16, 2007

>

"Sicko" and the massive public reaction in

overwhelming agreement with its condemnation

of the current HMO system and the obvious

implication that there could be much much

better, represents the twilight of a failed

system and failed dominance of a single

way of thinking which was, formerly,

accepted as axiomatic and unassailable.

As with the Iraq war issue, most of the

presidential candidates have muted

their response, regretfully, because

their trepidation at alienating portions

of the electorate have wrongly taken

prominence over opinions and policy

changes they KNOW to be viable

and needed.

As always, the first candidate who openly

supports Moore's views, as with those

who have bravely and correctly

condemned the Iraq war, will

take the high ground amidst a flurry

of Giulanian and Clintonian

doubt evoking fusillades.

Presidential campaigns, as with

America's greatness, are never won

by playing safe.

OFTEN MISREPRESENTED as some

sort of capitalism vs. socialism dichotomy,

health care is instead an American

issue, a HUMAN issue - something

that the corporatistas with their

"Human Resource" (sic) departments

would never understand.

It is THAT simple.

Citizen Jimserac

July 16, 2007

"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:1yJmi.27119$3a.5287@bignews9.bellsouth.net...

> July 16, 2007

>

> Op-Ed Columnist

> The Waiting Game

> By PAUL KRUGMAN

> Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President Bush. "I

> mean, people have access to health care in America," he said last week.

> "After all, you just go to an emergency room."

>

> This is what you might call callousness with consequences. The White House

> has announced that Mr. Bush will veto a bipartisan plan that would extend

> health insurance, and with it such essentials as regular checkups and

> preventive medical care, to an estimated 4.1 million currently uninsured

> children. After all, it's not as if those kids really need insurance -

> they can just go to emergency rooms, right?

>

> O.K., it's not news that Mr. Bush has no empathy for people less fortunate

> than himself. But his willful ignorance here is part of a larger picture:

> by and large, opponents of universal health care paint a glowing portrait

> of the American system that bears as little resemblance to reality as the

> scare stories they tell about health care in France, Britain, and Canada.

>

> The claim that the uninsured can get all the care they need in emergency

> rooms is just the beginning. Beyond that is the myth that Americans who

> are lucky enough to have insurance never face long waits for medical care.

>

> Actually, the persistence of that myth puzzles me. I can understand how

> people like Mr. Bush or Fred Thompson, who declared recently that "the

> poorest Americans are getting far better service" than Canadians or the

> British, can wave away the desperation of uninsured Americans, who are

> often poor and voiceless. But how can they get away with pretending that

> insured Americans always get prompt care, when most of us can testify

> otherwise?

>

> A recent article in Business Week put it bluntly: "In reality, both data

> and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or

> longer than patients living with universal health-care systems."

>

> A cross-national survey conducted by the Commonwealth Fund found that

> America ranks near the bottom among advanced countries in terms of how

> hard it is to get medical attention on short notice (although Canada was

> slightly worse), and that America is the worst place in the advanced world

> if you need care after hours or on a weekend.

>

> We look better when it comes to seeing a specialist or receiving elective

> surgery. But Germany outperforms us even on those measures - and I suspect

> that France, which wasn't included in the study, matches Germany's

> performance.

>

> Besides, not all medical delays are created equal. In Canada and Britain,

> delays are caused by doctors trying to devote limited medical resources to

> the most urgent cases. In the United States, they're often caused by

> insurance companies trying to save money.

>

> This can lead to ordeals like the one recently described by Mark Kleiman,

> a professor at U.C.L.A., who nearly died of cancer because his insurer

> kept delaying approval for a necessary biopsy. "It was only later," writes

> Mr. Kleiman on his blog, "that I discovered why the insurance company was

> stalling; I had an option, which I didn't know I had, to avoid all the

> approvals by going to 'Tier II,' which would have meant higher

> co-payments."

>

> He adds, "I don't know how many people my insurance company waited to

> death that year, but I'm certain the number wasn't zero."

>

> To be fair, Mr. Kleiman is only surmising that his insurance company

> risked his life in an attempt to get him to pay more of his treatment

> costs. But there's no question that some Americans who seemingly have good

> insurance nonetheless die because insurers are trying to hold down their

> "medical losses" - the industry term for actually having to pay for care.

>

> On the other hand, it's true that Americans get hip replacements faster

> than Canadians. But there's a funny thing about that example, which is

> used constantly as an argument for the superiority of private health

> insurance over a government-run system: the large majority of hip

> replacements in the United States are paid for by, um, Medicare.

>

> That's right: the hip-replacement gap is actually a comparison of two

> government health insurance systems. American Medicare has shorter waits

> than Canadian Medicare (yes, that's what they call their system) because

> it has more lavish funding - end of story. The alleged virtues of private

> insurance have nothing to do with it.

>

> The bottom line is that the opponents of universal health care appear to

> have run out of honest arguments. All they have left are fantasies: horror

> fiction about health care in other countries, and fairy tales about health

> care here in America.

>

Krugman himself perpetuates myths about healthcare.

Myth #1: if you don't have insurance, you don't have access to healthcare.

As Bush was describing in the first paragraph of Krugman's article, anyone

can call up a doctor and pay out of pocket for an office visit. My doctor

charges $65 for one.

Myth #2: insurance companies deny people necessary medical treatment.

Insurance companies do not provide medical treatment, they only pay for it.

So when an insurance companies denies coverage, it is only denying payment.

The patient still have the option of, horror, paying for it himself.

July 16, 2007

Taylor wrote:

> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

> news:1yJmi.27119$3a.5287@bignews9.bellsouth.net...

>> July 16, 2007

>>

>> Op-Ed Columnist

>> The Waiting Game

>> By PAUL KRUGMAN

>> Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President

>> Bush. "I mean, people have access to health care in America," he

>> said last week. "After all, you just go to an emergency room."

>>

>> This is what you might call callousness with consequences. The White

>> House has announced that Mr. Bush will veto a bipartisan plan that

>> would extend health insurance, and with it such essentials as

>> regular checkups and preventive medical care, to an estimated 4.1

>> million currently uninsured children. After all, it's not as if

>> those kids really need insurance - they can just go to emergency

>> rooms, right? O.K., it's not news that Mr. Bush has no empathy for people

>> less

>> fortunate than himself. But his willful ignorance here is part of a

>> larger picture: by and large, opponents of universal health care

>> paint a glowing portrait of the American system that bears as little

>> resemblance to reality as the scare stories they tell about health

>> care in France, Britain, and Canada. The claim that the uninsured can get

>> all the care they need in

>> emergency rooms is just the beginning. Beyond that is the myth that

>> Americans who are lucky enough to have insurance never face long

>> waits for medical care. Actually, the persistence of that myth puzzles

>> me. I can understand

>> how people like Mr. Bush or Fred Thompson, who declared recently

>> that "the poorest Americans are getting far better service" than

>> Canadians or the British, can wave away the desperation of uninsured

>> Americans, who are often poor and voiceless. But how can they get

>> away with pretending that insured Americans always get prompt care,

>> when most of us can testify otherwise?

>>

>> A recent article in Business Week put it bluntly: "In reality, both

>> data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting

>> as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care

>> systems." A cross-national survey conducted by the Commonwealth Fund

>> found that

>> America ranks near the bottom among advanced countries in terms of

>> how hard it is to get medical attention on short notice (although

>> Canada was slightly worse), and that America is the worst place in

>> the advanced world if you need care after hours or on a weekend.

>>

>> We look better when it comes to seeing a specialist or receiving

>> elective surgery. But Germany outperforms us even on those measures

>> - and I suspect that France, which wasn't included in the study,

>> matches Germany's performance.

>>

>> Besides, not all medical delays are created equal. In Canada and

>> Britain, delays are caused by doctors trying to devote limited

>> medical resources to the most urgent cases. In the United States,

>> they're often caused by insurance companies trying to save money.

>>

>> This can lead to ordeals like the one recently described by Mark

>> Kleiman, a professor at U.C.L.A., who nearly died of cancer because

>> his insurer kept delaying approval for a necessary biopsy. "It was

>> only later," writes Mr. Kleiman on his blog, "that I discovered why

>> the insurance company was stalling; I had an option, which I didn't

>> know I had, to avoid all the approvals by going to 'Tier II,' which

>> would have meant higher co-payments."

>>

>> He adds, "I don't know how many people my insurance company waited to

>> death that year, but I'm certain the number wasn't zero."

>>

>> To be fair, Mr. Kleiman is only surmising that his insurance company

>> risked his life in an attempt to get him to pay more of his treatment

>> costs. But there's no question that some Americans who seemingly

>> have good insurance nonetheless die because insurers are trying to

>> hold down their "medical losses" - the industry term for actually

>> having to pay for care. On the other hand, it's true that Americans get

>> hip replacements

>> faster than Canadians. But there's a funny thing about that example,

>> which is used constantly as an argument for the superiority of

>> private health insurance over a government-run system: the large

>> majority of hip replacements in the United States are paid for by,

>> um, Medicare. That's right: the hip-replacement gap is actually a

>> comparison of two

>> government health insurance systems. American Medicare has shorter

>> waits than Canadian Medicare (yes, that's what they call their

>> system) because it has more lavish funding - end of story. The

>> alleged virtues of private insurance have nothing to do with it.

>>

>> The bottom line is that the opponents of universal health care

>> appear to have run out of honest arguments. All they have left are

>> fantasies: horror fiction about health care in other countries, and

>> fairy tales about health care here in America.

>>

>

> Krugman himself perpetuates myths about healthcare.

>

> Myth #1: if you don't have insurance, you don't have access to

> healthcare. As Bush was describing in the first paragraph of

> Krugman's article, anyone can call up a doctor and pay out of pocket

> for an office visit. My doctor charges $65 for one.

Anyone with $65 can do that...unless they

need to pay their rent and they are living

from paycheck to paycheck with two

wage earners in the family

>

> Myth #2: insurance companies deny people necessary medical treatment.

> Insurance companies do not provide medical treatment, they only pay

> for it. So when an insurance companies denies coverage, it is only

> denying payment. The patient still have the option of, horror, paying

> for it himself.

So the sucker, pays premiums for insurance, then the insurance

company makes him pay for the service he thought he bought

insurance for.

Sounds right.

Thats what they tried with me a few times.

They paid up in court.....but how much

did they get away with?

Have you seen SICKO?

When Moore asked for people to post stories he got over 25,000 hits in 24

hours.

The he spent time verifying the stories and chose a few for his movie.

Some of the movie is sworn testimony from a trial by insurance company

executives admitting to the fraud and deception they practiced

You didn;t see SICKO...you don't know shit.

July 16, 2007

Sid9 wrote:

> Anyone with $65 can do that...unless they

> need to pay their rent and they are living

> from paycheck to paycheck with two

> wage earners in the family

If you have two wage earners in the family and you don't have so much as

a $100 buffer for something like a doctor visit, I'd suggest that your

problems began long before you got sick. Either you have made poor

choices, or you have had other misfortunes. Either way, this is not a

valid argument on the cost of healthcare.

July 16, 2007

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:30:44 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>July 16, 2007

>

>Op-Ed Columnist

>The Waiting Game

>By PAUL KRUGMAN

>Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President Bush. "I

>mean, people have access to health care in America," he said last week.

>"After all, you just go to an emergency room."

>

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp...

July 16, 2007

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:32:54 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>Taylor wrote:

>> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

>> news:1yJmi.27119$3a.5287@bignews9.bellsouth.net...

>>> July 16, 2007

>>>

>>> Op-Ed Columnist

>>> The Waiting Game

>>> By PAUL KRUGMAN

>>> Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President

>>> Bush. "I mean, people have access to health care in America," he

>>> said last week. "After all, you just go to an emergency room."

>>>

>>> This is what you might call callousness with consequences. The White

>>> House has announced that Mr. Bush will veto a bipartisan plan that

>>> would extend health insurance, and with it such essentials as

>>> regular checkups and preventive medical care, to an estimated 4.1

>>> million currently uninsured children. After all, it's not as if

>>> those kids really need insurance - they can just go to emergency

>>> rooms, right? O.K., it's not news that Mr. Bush has no empathy for people

>>> less

>>> fortunate than himself. But his willful ignorance here is part of a

>>> larger picture: by and large, opponents of universal health care

>>> paint a glowing portrait of the American system that bears as little

>>> resemblance to reality as the scare stories they tell about health

>>> care in France, Britain, and Canada. The claim that the uninsured can get

>>> all the care they need in

>>> emergency rooms is just the beginning. Beyond that is the myth that

>>> Americans who are lucky enough to have insurance never face long

>>> waits for medical care. Actually, the persistence of that myth puzzles

>>> me. I can understand

>>> how people like Mr. Bush or Fred Thompson, who declared recently

>>> that "the poorest Americans are getting far better service" than

>>> Canadians or the British, can wave away the desperation of uninsured

>>> Americans, who are often poor and voiceless. But how can they get

>>> away with pretending that insured Americans always get prompt care,

>>> when most of us can testify otherwise?

>>>

>>> A recent article in Business Week put it bluntly: "In reality, both

>>> data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting

>>> as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care

>>> systems." A cross-national survey conducted by the Commonwealth Fund

>>> found that

>>> America ranks near the bottom among advanced countries in terms of

>>> how hard it is to get medical attention on short notice (although

>>> Canada was slightly worse), and that America is the worst place in

>>> the advanced world if you need care after hours or on a weekend.

>>>

>>> We look better when it comes to seeing a specialist or receiving

>>> elective surgery. But Germany outperforms us even on those measures

>>> - and I suspect that France, which wasn't included in the study,

>>> matches Germany's performance.

>>>

>>> Besides, not all medical delays are created equal. In Canada and

>>> Britain, delays are caused by doctors trying to devote limited

>>> medical resources to the most urgent cases. In the United States,

>>> they're often caused by insurance companies trying to save money.

>>>

>>> This can lead to ordeals like the one recently described by Mark

>>> Kleiman, a professor at U.C.L.A., who nearly died of cancer because

>>> his insurer kept delaying approval for a necessary biopsy. "It was

>>> only later," writes Mr. Kleiman on his blog, "that I discovered why

>>> the insurance company was stalling; I had an option, which I didn't

>>> know I had, to avoid all the approvals by going to 'Tier II,' which

>>> would have meant higher co-payments."

>>>

>>> He adds, "I don't know how many people my insurance company waited to

>>> death that year, but I'm certain the number wasn't zero."

>>>

>>> To be fair, Mr. Kleiman is only surmising that his insurance company

>>> risked his life in an attempt to get him to pay more of his treatment

>>> costs. But there's no question that some Americans who seemingly

>>> have good insurance nonetheless die because insurers are trying to

>>> hold down their "medical losses" - the industry term for actually

>>> having to pay for care. On the other hand, it's true that Americans get

>>> hip replacements

>>> faster than Canadians. But there's a funny thing about that example,

>>> which is used constantly as an argument for the superiority of

>>> private health insurance over a government-run system: the large

>>> majority of hip replacements in the United States are paid for by,

>>> um, Medicare. That's right: the hip-replacement gap is actually a

>>> comparison of two

>>> government health insurance systems. American Medicare has shorter

>>> waits than Canadian Medicare (yes, that's what they call their

>>> system) because it has more lavish funding - end of story. The

>>> alleged virtues of private insurance have nothing to do with it.

>>>

>>> The bottom line is that the opponents of universal health care

>>> appear to have run out of honest arguments. All they have left are

>>> fantasies: horror fiction about health care in other countries, and

>>> fairy tales about health care here in America.

>>>

>>

>> Krugman himself perpetuates myths about healthcare.

>>

>> Myth #1: if you don't have insurance, you don't have access to

>> healthcare. As Bush was describing in the first paragraph of

>> Krugman's article, anyone can call up a doctor and pay out of pocket

>> for an office visit. My doctor charges $65 for one.

>

>Anyone with $65 can do that...unless they

>need to pay their rent and they are living

>from paycheck to paycheck with two

>wage earners in the family

That looks like a couple of people who didn't plan very well.....

The Bryan Jamieson's come to mind...... why should I be concerned

about their irresponsible decisions....?

>> Myth #2: insurance companies deny people necessary medical treatment.

>> Insurance companies do not provide medical treatment, they only pay

>> for it. So when an insurance companies denies coverage, it is only

>> denying payment. The patient still have the option of, horror, paying

>> for it himself.

>

>So the sucker, pays premiums for insurance, then the insurance

>company makes him pay for the service he thought he bought

>insurance for.

>

>Sounds right.

>

>Thats what they tried with me a few times.

>They paid up in court.....but how much

>did they get away with?

>

>Have you seen SICKO?

>

>When Moore asked for people to post stories he got over 25,000 hits in 24

>hours.

>The he spent time verifying the stories and chose a few for his movie.

>

>Some of the movie is sworn testimony from a trial by insurance company

>executives admitting to the fraud and deception they practiced

>

>You didn;t see SICKO...you don't know shit.

>

July 16, 2007

On Jul 16, 8:20 am, "Taylor" <Tay...@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

>

> news:1yJmi.27119$3a.5287@bignews9.bellsouth.net...

>

> > July 16, 2007

>

> > Op-Ed Columnist

> > The Waiting Game

> > By PAUL KRUGMAN

> > Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President Bush. "I

> > mean, people have access to health care in America," he said last week.

> > "After all, you just go to an emergency room."

>

> > This is what you might call callousness with consequences. The White House

> > has announced that Mr. Bush will veto a bipartisan plan that would extend

> > health insurance, and with it such essentials as regular checkups and

> > preventive medical care, to an estimated 4.1 million currently uninsured

> > children. After all, it's not as if those kids really need insurance -

> > they can just go to emergency rooms, right?

>

> > O.K., it's not news that Mr. Bush has no empathy for people less fortunate

> > than himself. But his willful ignorance here is part of a larger picture:

> > by and large, opponents of universal health care paint a glowing portrait

> > of the American system that bears as little resemblance to reality as the

> > scare stories they tell about health care in France, Britain, and Canada.

>

> > The claim that the uninsured can get all the care they need in emergency

> > rooms is just the beginning. Beyond that is the myth that Americans who

> > are lucky enough to have insurance never face long waits for medical care.

>

> > Actually, the persistence of that myth puzzles me. I can understand how

> > people like Mr. Bush or Fred Thompson, who declared recently that "the

> > poorest Americans are getting far better service" than Canadians or the

> > British, can wave away the desperation of uninsured Americans, who are

> > often poor and voiceless. But how can they get away with pretending that

> > insured Americans always get prompt care, when most of us can testify

> > otherwise?

>

> > A recent article in Business Week put it bluntly: "In reality, both data

> > and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or

> > longer than patients living with universal health-care systems."

>

> > A cross-national survey conducted by the Commonwealth Fund found that

> > America ranks near the bottom among advanced countries in terms of how

> > hard it is to get medical attention on short notice (although Canada was

> > slightly worse), and that America is the worst place in the advanced world

> > if you need care after hours or on a weekend.

>

> > We look better when it comes to seeing a specialist or receiving elective

> > surgery. But Germany outperforms us even on those measures - and I suspect

> > that France, which wasn't included in the study, matches Germany's

> > performance.

>

> > Besides, not all medical delays are created equal. In Canada and Britain,

> > delays are caused by doctors trying to devote limited medical resources to

> > the most urgent cases. In the United States, they're often caused by

> > insurance companies trying to save money.

>

> > This can lead to ordeals like the one recently described by Mark Kleiman,

> > a professor at U.C.L.A., who nearly died of cancer because his insurer

> > kept delaying approval for a necessary biopsy. "It was only later," writes

> > Mr. Kleiman on his blog, "that I discovered why the insurance company was

> > stalling; I had an option, which I didn't know I had, to avoid all the

> > approvals by going to 'Tier II,' which would have meant higher

> > co-payments."

>

> > He adds, "I don't know how many people my insurance company waited to

> > death that year, but I'm certain the number wasn't zero."

>

> > To be fair, Mr. Kleiman is only surmising that his insurance company

> > risked his life in an attempt to get him to pay more of his treatment

> > costs. But there's no question that some Americans who seemingly have good

> > insurance nonetheless die because insurers are trying to hold down their

> > "medical losses" - the industry term for actually having to pay for care.

>

> > On the other hand, it's true that Americans get hip replacements faster

> > than Canadians. But there's a funny thing about that example, which is

> > used constantly as an argument for the superiority of private health

> > insurance over a government-run system: the large majority of hip

> > replacements in the United States are paid for by, um, Medicare.

>

> > That's right: the hip-replacement gap is actually a comparison of two

> > government health insurance systems. American Medicare has shorter waits

> > than Canadian Medicare (yes, that's what they call their system) because

> > it has more lavish funding - end of story. The alleged virtues of private

> > insurance have nothing to do with it.

>

> > The bottom line is that the opponents of universal health care appear to

> > have run out of honest arguments. All they have left are fantasies: horror

> > fiction about health care in other countries, and fairy tales about health

> > care here in America.

>

> Krugman himself perpetuates myths about healthcare.

>

> Myth #1: if you don't have insurance, you don't have access to healthcare.

> As Bush was describing in the first paragraph of Krugman's article, anyone

> can call up a doctor and pay out of pocket for an office visit. My doctor

> charges $65 for one.

>

> Myth #2: insurance companies deny people necessary medical treatment.

> Insurance companies do not provide medical treatment, they only pay for it.

> So when an insurance companies denies coverage, it is only denying payment.

> The patient still have the option of, horror, paying for it himself.

Thank you. This is something people forget.

Baldin Pramer

July 16, 2007

JimPgh wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:30:44 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>

>> July 16, 2007

>>

>> Op-Ed Columnist

>> The Waiting Game

>> By PAUL KRUGMAN

>> Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President

>> Bush. "I mean, people have access to health care in America," he

>> said last week. "After all, you just go to an emergency room."

>>

>

> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681801.shtml?cmp...

Nice article! Thanks!

(See excerpt below)

"...Despite the financial burden, Canadians value their Medicare as a marker

of egalitarianism and independent identity that sets their country apart

from the United States, where some 45 million Americans lack health

insurance.

Raisa Deber, a professor of health policy at the University of Toronto,

believes Canada's system is one of the world's fairest.

"Canadians are very proud of the fact that if they need care, they will get

care," she said. Of the United States, she said: "I don't understand how

they got to this worship of markets, to the extent that they're perfectly

happy that some people don't get the health care that they need."

Canada does not have fully nationalized health care; its doctors are in

private practice and send their bills to the government for reimbursement.

"That doctor doesn't have to worry about how you're going to pay the bill,"

said Deber. "He knows that his bill will be paid, so there's absolutely

nothing to stop any doctor from treating anyone." ..."

July 16, 2007

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 09:14:40 -0400, ?????????? wrote:

> 'Sicko' leaves top Democrats ill at ease

> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-movie22jun22,0,5962985.story?coll=la-home-center

>

> "To presume that the private sector is going to sit idly by to see the

> destruction of private coverage I think is a misreading of reality," said

> Ron Pollack of the advocacy group Families USA.

And that, in a nutshell, is What's Wrong With America.

July 16, 2007

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 07:39:23 -0700, James McGill

<jmcgill@email.arizona.edu> wrote:

>Sid9 wrote:

>> Anyone with $65 can do that...unless they

>> need to pay their rent and they are living

>> from paycheck to paycheck with two

>> wage earners in the family

>

>If you have two wage earners in the family and you don't have so much as

>a $100 buffer for something like a doctor visit, I'd suggest that your

>problems began long before you got sick. Either you have made poor

>choices, or you have had other misfortunes. Either way, this is not a

>valid argument on the cost of healthcare.

You don't expect the leftists to stop demanding that the responsible

people pay the bills for the irresponsible ones, do you?

July 16, 2007

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 09:48:58 -0500, booker

<invalid@invalid.com.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 09:14:40 -0400, ?????????? wrote:

>

>> 'Sicko' leaves top Democrats ill at ease

>> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-movie22jun22,0,5962985.story?coll=la-home-center

>>

>

>>

>> "To presume that the private sector is going to sit idly by to see the

>> destruction of private coverage I think is a misreading of reality," said

>> Ron Pollack of the advocacy group Families USA.

>

>And that, in a nutshell, is What's Wrong With America.

get out the guns and force people to give up their choice... yeah,

that's the American way...

July 16, 2007

On Jul 16, 8:30 am, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> July 16, 2007

>

> Op-Ed Columnist

> The Waiting Game

> By PAUL KRUGMAN

> Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President Bush. "I

> mean, people have access to health care in America," he said last week.

> "After all, you just go to an emergency room."

>

> This is what you might call callousness with consequences. The White House

> has announced that Mr. Bush will veto a bipartisan plan that would extend

> health insurance, and with it such essentials as regular checkups and

> preventive medical care, to an estimated 4.1 million currently uninsured

> children. After all, it's not as if those kids really need insurance - they

> can just go to emergency rooms, right?

>

> O.K., it's not news that Mr. Bush has no empathy for people less fortunate

> than himself. But his willful ignorance here is part of a larger picture: by

> and large, opponents of universal health care paint a glowing portrait of

> the American system that bears as little resemblance to reality as the scare

> stories they tell about health care in France, Britain, and Canada.

>

> The claim that the uninsured can get all the care they need in emergency

> rooms is just the beginning. Beyond that is the myth that Americans who are

> lucky enough to have insurance never face long waits for medical care.

>

> Actually, the persistence of that myth puzzles me. I can understand how

> people like Mr. Bush or Fred Thompson, who declared recently that "the

> poorest Americans are getting far better service" than Canadians or the

> British, can wave away the desperation of uninsured Americans, who are often

> poor and voiceless. But how can they get away with pretending that insured

> Americans always get prompt care, when most of us can testify otherwise?

>

> A recent article in Business Week put it bluntly: "In reality, both data and

> anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or

> longer than patients living with universal health-care systems."

>

> A cross-national survey conducted by the Commonwealth Fund found that

> America ranks near the bottom among advanced countries in terms of how hard

> it is to get medical attention on short notice (although Canada was slightly

> worse), and that America is the worst place in the advanced world if you

> need care after hours or on a weekend.

>

> We look better when it comes to seeing a specialist or receiving elective

> surgery. But Germany outperforms us even on those measures - and I suspect

> that France, which wasn't included in the study, matches Germany's

> performance.

>

> Besides, not all medical delays are created equal. In Canada and Britain,

> delays are caused by doctors trying to devote limited medical resources to

> the most urgent cases. In the United States, they're often caused by

> insurance companies trying to save money.

>

> This can lead to ordeals like the one recently described by Mark Kleiman, a

> professor at U.C.L.A., who nearly died of cancer because his insurer kept

> delaying approval for a necessary biopsy. "It was only later," writes Mr.

> Kleiman on his blog, "that I discovered why the insurance company was

> stalling; I had an option, which I didn't know I had, to avoid all the

> approvals by going to 'Tier II,' which would have meant higher co-payments."

>

> He adds, "I don't know how many people my insurance company waited to death

> that year, but I'm certain the number wasn't zero."

>

> To be fair, Mr. Kleiman is only surmising that his insurance company risked

> his life in an attempt to get him to pay more of his treatment costs. But

> there's no question that some Americans who seemingly have good insurance

> nonetheless die because insurers are trying to hold down their "medical

> losses" - the industry term for actually having to pay for care.

>

> On the other hand, it's true that Americans get hip replacements faster than

> Canadians. But there's a funny thing about that example, which is used

> constantly as an argument for the superiority of private health insurance

> over a government-run system: the large majority of hip replacements in the

> United States are paid for by, um, Medicare.

>

> That's right: the hip-replacement gap is actually a comparison of two

> government health insurance systems. American Medicare has shorter waits

> than Canadian Medicare (yes, that's what they call their system) because it

> has more lavish funding - end of story. The alleged virtues of private

> insurance have nothing to do with it.

>

> The bottom line is that the opponents of universal health care appear to

> have run out of honest arguments. All they have left are fantasies: horror

> fiction about health care in other countries, and fairy tales about health

> care here in America.

Summer 2007 Issue: Latin America Rising

Cuba's Cure

by Sarah van Gelder

The story of Cuba's health care ambitions is deliberately hidden from

the people of the United States.

The Cuban health care system is producing a population that is as

healthy as those of the world's wealthiest countries at a fraction of

the cost.

Why is Cuba exporting its health care miracle to the world's poor?

Cubans say they offer health care to the world's poor because they

have big hearts. But what do they get in return?

They live longer than almost anyone in Latin America. Far fewer babies

die. Almost everyone has been vaccinated, and such scourges of the

poor as parasites, TB, malaria, even HIV/AIDS are rare or non-

existent. Anyone can see a doctor, at low cost, right in the

neighborhood.

The Cuban health care system is producing a population that is as

healthy as those of the world's wealthiest countries at a fraction of

the cost. And now Cuba has begun exporting its system to under-served

communities around the world-including the United States.

Cubans say they offer health care to the world's poor because they

have big hearts. But what do they get in return?

They live longer than almost anyone in Latin America. Far fewer babies

die. Almost everyone has been vaccinated, and such scourges of the

poor as parasites, TB, malaria, even HIV/AIDS are rare or non-

existent. Anyone can see a doctor, at low cost, right in the

neighborhood.

The Cuban health care system is producing a population that is as

healthy as those of the world's wealthiest countries at a fraction of

the cost. And now Cuba has begun exporting its system to under-served

communities around the world-including the United States.

The story of Cuba's health care ambitions is largely hidden from the

people of the United States, where politics left over from the Cold

War maintain an embargo on information and understanding. But it is

increasingly well-known in the poorest communities of Latin America,

the Caribbean, and parts of Africa where Cuban and Cuban-trained

doctors are practicing.

In the words of Dr. Paul Farmer, Cuba is showing that "you can

introduce the notion of a right to health care and wipe out the

diseases of poverty."

Health Care for All Cubans

Many elements of the health care system Cuba is exporting around the

world are common-sense practices. Everyone has access to doctors,

nurses, specialists, and medications. There is a doctor and nurse team

in every neighborhood, although somewhat fewer now, with 29,000

medical professionals serving out of the country-a fact that is

causing some complaints. If someone doesn't like their neighborhood

doctor, they can choose another one.

House calls are routine, in part because it's the responsibility of

the doctor and nurse team to understand you and your health issues in

the context of your family, home, and neighborhood. This is key to the

system. By catching diseases and health hazards before they get big,

the Cuban medical system can spend a little on prevention rather than

a lot later on to cure diseases, stop outbreaks, or cope with long-

term disabilities. When a health hazard like dengue fever or malaria

is identified, there is a coordinated nationwide effort to eradicate

it. Cubans no longer suffer from diphtheria, rubella, polio, or

measles and they have the lowest AIDS rate in the Americas, and the

highest rate of treatment and control of hypertension.

For health issues beyond the capacity of the neighborhood doctor,

polyclinics provide specialists, outpatient operations, physical

therapy, rehabilitation, and labs. Those who need inpatient treatment

can go to hospitals; at the end of their stay, their neighborhood

medical team helps make the transition home. Doctors at all levels are

trained to administer acupuncture, herbal cures, or other

complementary practices that Cuban labs have found effective. And

Cuban researchers develop their own vaccinations and treatments when

medications aren't available due to the blockade, or when they don't

exist.