Bush talks about healthcare in Cleveland

[peady2]

I thought this was an interesting comment I read on another BB:

"...I've found myself in emergency rooms in both England and the US and can tell you, without fear of contradiction, that it took considerably longer to obtain treatment in the US. Why? Because in the US emergency facilities are largely filled with the poor and/or uninsured, who must wait until they or their children are ill enough to qualify for emergency medical treatment."

[peady2]

Paul Krugman talks about the myths of opponents of universal health care (July 15, 2007):

"...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."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Yes, I already know that Paul Krugman is a stinkin' liberal who writes for the stinkin' liberal paper The New York Times...)

On that note-My husband tried to get a derm appt in early July for a suspicious looking growth. Regular derm's receptionist told him she had nothing available and that the doc had not yet made available his SEPTEMBER appointment book. Finally got an appt at a new derm, for mid August. I recently needed an opthamology appt. The first available was 6 weeks hence. This occurred in a suburb of NYC, not some rinky dink town in the middle of nowhere. Who says Americans don't have to wait for healthcare?

Oh and when we protested we needed something sooner?

"If you are really concerned go to the emergency room."

I kid you not.

[faithforever]

OMG this president's ignorance is only second to his arrogance. Can he be that out of touch with reality to make such a statement?

I fear for this country, I truely do.

[leigh]

First off, Peady, keep us informed about your husband, please. I will be thinking of you.

The stinkin' liberal omits the fact that private pay options are available to citizens of countries with a nationalized health plan. The rich citizens can afford shorter waits, etc. Do you really think that American transplants such as Madonna are going to slog it out in a clinic like everyone else ? What about JK Rowling ? I am sure that the overall stats for healthcare outcomes roll both government and private paying citizens' healthcare into one result. You also have to consider, in respect to pure statistics, that America has 300 millions people of diverse ethnic backround, plus we have a porous border that 12 million illergals have crossed and have since flooded our clinics and hospitals with an ethnicity that seems to suffer from obesity and diabetes, which , of course, costs millions and complicates our fragile healthcare structure even more. Also, America does recon missions deep into the desert and flies back dying illegals into our country to stabilize them before deporting them.
Do you think Europe has to deal with this shyt to the extent that we do ?
We also have a massive interstate highway system that sees 40,00 plus deaths annually, not to mention the numbers of home gun accidents. We have the highest murder rate, more trauma.

My point is our healthcare needs are more complex than small european countries with far less people, and less ethnicity and not nearly the same amount of illegals using healthcare. Universal healthcare will not make our problems disappear. It is not "free " either.

I strongly support legislation aimed at curbing medical malpractice. Doctors are forced to over test and over do it many times because of a fear of litigation.
HMMMMM, John Edwards made his money from medical malpractice cases, especially cerebral palsy, which, by the way, has been found to occur many times in utero, not as a result of birthing trauma. You can't blame doctors for overreacting in the face of a potential lawsuit threat daily. Doctors go to medical school to learn how to use their judgement and critical thinking skills, not to practice defensive medicine to get them off the hook for a lawsuit, but that is exactly what has happened in our society. We are sue happy. Europe does not do that.

Why not bring these factors up ? Seems to me the left is just pandering for votes and fooling the American people that universal healthcare will wave its magic wand and make our problems go away.

One last thought. After hours care will only worsen. The clinics will close at 1600 and all other patients will have to sit in the ER.

[faithforever]

But dusty- did GWB really suggest we go to a ER for care?

I googled this and couldn't find the exact quote but for God's sake you have to admit the statement is ludricrous.

Do you think health care is a right or a privledge? Let's start the debate there.

[peady2]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070710-6.html

Straight from the White House press release.

Yes, faith he did say it and exactly as quoted.

Dusty you raise some good points, especially about our demographics compared to European nations, and as usual are very articulate. I think for any universal healthcare plan to work, it would probably need to be administered by the states, although everyone would have the same basics available. I don't entirely disagree with your comment about John Edwards, but I also think that legitimate victims have a right to restitution. And I wonder how the right would feel if he were a Republican-would they demonize a conservative med mal attorney like they do Edwards? Would universal healthcare put an end to med mal-can you sue the government? Lots of questions here. But I believe that any intelligent and rational person does not think universal healthcare is a panacea; however our system is broke and getting worse by the day. We need to do SOMETHING.

And thank you for expressing your concern for my husband. The growth in question is very small but I don't like the way it looks and both of his parents have had melanomas. I'll keep you posted.

[peady2]

BTW, faith-I happen to think healthcare is a right. Maybe I think with my heart but I could never refuse assistance to anyone.

[peady2]

Also, dusty-you spoke about supporting legislation to curb med mal. But you didn't mention Bush's plan that the federal government (i.e. we, the people) pay the physicians'/providers' med mal liability insurance. What do you think of that plan?

[peady2]

I don't know why the link won't work. It brings you to the whitehouse.gov page but not the file. It works if you cut and paste the link. But I'll try to post it again:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070710-6.html

[peady2]

The second link works.

[insenescence1]

Of course health care is a right.

Just like gun ownership is a right.

I, however, pay for my own guns, and no-one else's. The gov't does not drop a dime for any other 'right.'

Recognizing something as a right does not make it free.

The way the President's quotes were presented are misleading. He wasn't identifying ER's as the terminal entry to health care; he was citing it as an example of an easily accessed medium.

And I'm trying to find any reference that supports your claim that this president wants to pay for physician's medical liability insurance. What is the name of this plan? When did he present this plan? It appears you don't even understand what he's proposing.

I do, and it's not for the taxpayer to pay medical liability premiums for our physicians.

Read up.

[leigh]

No, I don't support paying malpractice/insurance fees. No way. I also agree that capitalistic greed needs to be eradicated from healthcare. I don't know how to do it, but I just know letting the government run healthcare is a terrible solution.

In malpractice cases, the physician or nurse needs to lose their license to practice. Many times that does not happen. The doc ends up paying higher malpractice fees and goes back to work. If I had a loved one injured by a careless mistake, I would see to it that the license of that provider would be yanked permanently, and that would give me greater satisfaction than monetary compensation. Restitution should be given, but only the expenses incurred by the medical error, such as lost wages compensation, nursing care, etc, but not millions of dollars. I think capping malpractice fees is a great idea. Too often, people are looking for a lottery payoff.

Faith, I think the president was saying the ER should not be a first line medical visit because of the cost. I think he was being sarcastic when he said one could go to an ER. I worked in an ER in nursing school, and I would have to say many cases there were almost ridiculous.
The president said the healthcare mess should be fixed to the point that people should not have to depend on an ER for medical care. He has a dry sense of humor that catches people off guard.

[peady2]

Ok, insen, I will just post an exact quote from the press release at whitehouse.org. Readers can interpret as they wish. But it appears to me that you see something in his words that isn't there. Or did he tell you wahat he means?

"Let me talk about health care, since it's fresh on my mind. The objective has got to be to make sure America is the best place in the world to get health care, that we're the most innovative country, that we encourage doctors to stay in practice, that we are robust in the funding of research, and that patients get good, quality care at a reasonable cost.

The immediate goal is to make sure there are more people on private insurance plans. I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room. The question is, will we be wise about how we pay for health care. I believe the best way to do so is to enable more people to have private insurance. And the reason I emphasize private insurance, the best health care plan -- the best health care policy is one that emphasizes private health. In other words, the opposite of that would be government control of health care."

If Congress passes "federal medical liability insurance for our doctors and our providers," won't these providers then get liability insurance at a fixed rate? Who will pay for it, if not the taxpayers?

"I'm a strong believer in medical liability reform. We've got a legal system which is driving up the costs of medicine, because docs are practicing defensive medicine and driving good doctors out of practice. And it makes no sense to have a legal system that punishes good medicine. And therefore, I strongly believe that the Congress ought to pass

[peady2]

President Bush Visits Cleveland, Ohio July 10 2007 "...Let me talk about health care, since it's fresh on my mind....people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room. " But if you aren't insured, who pays for it? Can the un/underinsured afford an ER visit? And is it the best use of our resources to neglect healthcare for these people until an ER visit becomes necessary? Not to mention the high cost of such a "plan" to the morbidity and mortality of our citizens? Where is the humanity? "I'm a strong believer in medical liability reform...I strongly believe that the Congress ought to pass federal medical liability insurance for our doctors and our providers." Ok I see, let's pay for the docs insurance, but not worry about the millions in this country who have no health insurance. Oh wait, I forgot-they can just go to the nearest emergency room...

[peady2]

"If I had a loved one injured by a careless mistake, I would see to it that the license of that provider would be yanked permanently, and that would give me greater satisfaction than monetary compensation. Restitution should be given, but only the expenses incurred by the medical error, such as lost wages compensation, nursing care, etc, but not millions of dollars."

Dusty-take it from someone who did have a loved one injured (killed) by a medical error, it isn't as easy as you think. My family would have been happy if the practioner's license had even been suspended but when you are dealing with a good old boy network like the AMA that is highly unlikely. Money would not have brought my loved one back. But sometimes a hit in the pocketbook is the only thing these docs understand.

And as for millions won in med mal cases, it is unusal for a case to net millions in a court win, and even more unusual for that sum to be paid. That's why we read about it in the papers when it happens. But in the case of a young person, loss of income over a lifetime can easily reach the millions.

I find it amazing that people who support GWB can see all sorts of nuances in his words like humor or sarcasm, or that the ER is an "easily accessed medium" for those without insurance. Maybe we liberals just need you conservatives to interpret for us anytime GWB speaks.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar (pun intended).