quote:

---

Originally posted by jamescase20:
[QB] Believe me...doctors wouldnt turn into careless trash under a govt paid for industy...they would however, I believe turn into "honest doctors" rather then the corupt system we have today.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ugagal:
Under socialized medicine get ready to wait 2 years for a MRI or other medically necessary test

Also, making any doctor's appt might mean waiting 6 months or longer.

There will be some important disadvantages!

---

People forget this.

If I had to wait 6 months every time I needed to see a doc, I'd be dead by now. If we get socialized medicine in the US, I'll switch to self treating with meds ordered from developing countries over waiting months and months to be told I need to try a different doctor because my problems are too complex or not something they want to treat.
 

---

Posted by jamescase20 (Member # 14124) on :
 
not like you can find a llmd with ease even now!!!

you CANT hardly find one, and you can barely if you can..at all afford them.
 

---

Posted by jamescase20 (Member # 14124) on :
 
well, clearly this system in this country is corrupt. And personally I dont want any part of it. I would welcome anything that would explode it. I have found I can only help myself. And except for like s heart attack or stroke, I want no part of doctors today. I dont even see the need frankly, just a waste of my time. I mean that too. They waste my time is all they do.
 

---

Posted by Beverly (Member # 1271) on :
 
Interesting thread.
 

---

Posted by AmandaM (Member # 17466) on :
 
I strongly believe that basic hospital care and *basic* healthcare needs to be socialized by the government. Also Prescription coverage needs to be socialized. All this would mean is that we would be taxed so every citizen of this country (and visitors) would get basic hospital care and affordable prescriptions no matter who you are or what medication it is.

This is done in many other countries and it works. I have personally lived through the NHS in the UK and I was treated like gold even though I wasn't even a citizen. I got tons of presctriptions for �7.15 regardless of my insurance or what medication it was. 10 pills or 1000 pills. It was the same price all the time.

I feel it is a human right to have basic affordable health coverage. Period. This isn't a socialist issue it is a human rights issue. We need to step back and look at the big picture instead of only looking at only Lyme coverage.

Now -- when we take ourselves away from the big picture and look specifically into specialists and chronic illnesses -- we would have the ability to have private health insurance on top of the basic government healthcare we would all be getting. This is also how it is done in many other countries. Many jobs also offer supplemental health insurance plans.

This way --�at least people have the basic human right to seek a hospital for emergency care without financial question and will also get private specialist care (just like we do now)

This is 100% necessary for our society. 100%. I can not budge on this belief.

We really need to step back and look at the big picture.
 

---

Posted by dontlikeliver (Member # 4749) on :
 
I hope to give an objective view as I've lived with, and still do, with both systems. It's got pro's and con's, IMO, and is not black and white, cut and dried. I am American and living in the UK for the last 12 years. Here we have the National Health Service; socialized medicine. (though you CAN buy insurance and 'go private' as an option if you want to).

Let me start with the PRO's:

I can always get a same-day emergency appointment with my doc if I need it.

If I'm really sick, he will make a house call (same day).

I needed an ultrasound for a pelvic problem I have; I had to wait 10 days for it, that's not bad. It cost me nothing and was done by a surgeon so I could get my answers/ask my questions then and there.

If it was an emergency; I would have gone to the ER and had it done right then. Whatever your real emergency it's always investigated or treated on the spot: insurance is not a factor.

All medical care is free in that it's free 'at the point of entry'. Meaning, it's not entirely "Free" - we pay our National Insurance fees, which is same for each person from 17-65. But we never pay at the docs/hospital/getting tests, etc. If you're employed, your employer pays it for you. If you're self-employed, which I am, I pay it myself, but it is 'negligible' in comparison to private medical insurance fees. For people on government assistance, they do not pay their NI fees or rx fees. (though of course, there are some who take advantage of that system, human nature, unfortunately).

All tests are free, surgery, chemo, etc etc...free. My friend got Stage 3 breast cancer, she was immediately biopsied on finding a lump (3 lumps actually) and chemo was started after about 10 days, then radiation, then mastectomy. Free. She got an infected hickman line during the chemo and was very sick - I rushed her to the hospital where she was immediately rushed in and given abx, no questions no forms....free.

If you are old or too sick to get to the hospital for an appointment or surgery, the hospital/regional health service will send a taxi to take you there and bring you back.

If you need an ambulance, it comes very fast and is free. However, again some idiots call the emergecy service, as it's free, for stupid stuff which are not emergencies and sometimes not even medical so that drains the system's resources.

Prescriptions are free for under 16's and over 65's and pregnant women and diabetics. Everyone else pays a set price no matter what the drug, which is about $10 per rx, right now. If the rx is worth less than $10, my doctor will write a private rx for me so that I pay the lesser cost rather than the standard rx cost.

So, one pays nothing, ever, for any doctor's or hospital visit, testing, x-rays, MRI's, ER visits, casts, operations, during or after a visit etc.

Now the CON's:

There's a National Health Service BUDGET and, I believe, each doctor's (doctor's are contractors for the NHS) clinic also gets a budget from the National Health Service, which means that the doctor WILL consider whether he or she feels a test or procedure is NECESSARY because it comes out of the budget.

So, it has taken me some getting used to and I still *****, when I go to the doctor with a problem,that they usually do not routinely run all kinds of tests right off the bat. They take a 'let's wait and see - most things are self-limiting' attitude mostly as a first line of 'defense', and advise that you come back in X weeks if the problem is still there, for further testing. Of course, if it is something that rings alarm bells, you get any tests right away.

So, from my perspective there have been many times when I felt upset/angry that I wasn't immediately sent off for blood or other tests when I was anxious about something and wanted 'instant comfort/reassurance'.

They do NOT do things like colonoscopy's for the over 45's or 50's as a matter of course as it costs them money (rather than MAKES them money). If you have suspicious sx, then of course you get it but you do not get it automatically because you've hit a certain age.

Yearly physicals on the same level as in America are not done, unless there is cause for concern, other than your basic BP. My NHS GP argues that the private system does lots of tests because labs/docs make money from them even if they are not necessary...........the flip side is, to me, what if they are necessary and you miss something because you were watching the numbers....

The doctor will usually prescribe GENERIC meds rather than brand name (unless you REQUEST brand name - they will not advertise that to you but if you take it upon yourself you can fight budget-based decisions), due to cost of the drug to the system. Though I requested brand name Ceftin and got it because the generic made me so naseous.

Some areas of the country, with higher budgets or areas/departments that have not spent their budgets and have more money to 'play with' may give better and faster and more 'frivolous' care to the patients in their catchment area. They call it the "Post-code/zipcode lottery".... So, that is not fair and needs to be corrected. If you're young and smart, you can fight decisions made by the system but the elderly and not-so-smart may not be clued up enough to know to, or that they are entitled to, challenge decisions, etc......

I believe there IS age-discrimination. My father in law was denied a second heart bypass at 75 on the grounds he wasn't well enough. He's 86 now and has made it this far without a second bypass BUT perhaps he would have had a better quality of life for the last 11 years if they had given him the second bypass rather than living with angina this long. He'd had a bypass when he was 68 and was fine for 7 years. We then found out that a bypass usually has a lifespan of 7 years anyway, then you need it redone in many cases...but if you're 'too old' that might take a fight. (and the British often don't like to make waves, especially the older generation).

In pregnancy, ultrasounds are not routine until the 13th week. That caused me a lot of anxiety. Miscarriages are not investigated until you've met the criteria of having 3 in a row. I met this criteria now, but I'm 40 and feel it's too late. I begged them to investigate years ago and they would not because of 'the rules'........so I lost out. Now, I COULD have gone private in that case, and paid for that part to get it done, but I did not. I was also sick with what I did not know what Lyme at the time, so I did not fight.

So, in cases where you feel you're waiting too long or want a test they tell you is not (yet) necessary, then you can opt out if you want, and pay for that part and 'bypass' the lines, etc.... You have to find out and learn how to work the system to get out of it what you hope to get.

On the one hand you are assigned to clinics and GP's within your local catchment area - you can choose your doc from within that area, but you can't go to the next city or county, etc....just because you want to, within the NHS. On the other hand, and most people aren't aware of this, if you need a referral to a specialist, like a Neuro, Rheumy or whatever you CAN request to see someone of YOUR CHOICE, ANYWHERE in the country. It's called Choose and Book. I did just that and got funded to go see a Rheumy at the other end of the country who confirmed my LLMD's Lyme dx, rather than having to be cornered into seeing an ID specialist or a local Rheumy who likely would have looked at the NHS guidelines, which for Lyme = IDSA guidelines and DENIED my dx and tx.

It has been publicized in the media that some women with certain cancers have been denied expensive drugs that may be life-extending, due to high cost.

The NHS system relies on another system, NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) to advice them on what are good and effective medicines and what is not and when and how to prescribe them - COOKBOOK medicine. As we know, with LYME this does NOT work. NICE follows IDSA GUIDANCE. NOT GOOD FOR US. I had to FIGHT.

For the first couple of years the NHS refused to pay for my American LLMD's prescribed treatment/prescriptions.....BUT I persisted and after a couple of years I finally did get my Lyme treatment free. A lot of extra fighting a sick person does not need (though in America we have the same problem for Lyme patients fighting with insurance companies, so it's about the same from that perspective). I was denied IV on the grounds of risk and cost though. Whereas my LLMD had recommended IV if I could get it.....I could not get it here nor afford it privately if I bypassed the system.

I had to wait several months for an MRI when I had very bad sciatica. At the time I did not know it, but I could have have paid for my MRI and had it quickly. So, it's unfair, but possible to cut the lines if you pay privately.

I've had 2 laparoscopies here. For each one I had to wait about 2-3 months.

Pap smears are done every 3 years (unless you pay for more frequent or FIGHT for yearly ones).

There is also unfairness in that some countries within the UK, such as Scotland, the NHS provides, I believe, free nursing home care, whereas in England (separate country within the UK) you have to pay for a nursing home. If you go for a NHS nursing home it will be cheaper but not as nice as a private one that you pay quite a lot for.

I had a heck of a fight getting my GP to help me with anything Lyme related for half of my treatment for Lyme.....but when he saw that my LLMD was onto something and I was getting better, he DID help me and give me my rx's and for much of that time I was also exempt from the rx fee.

Now, I am relapsing after a year off abx and this time he offered to talk to my LLMD himself in order to save me a LLMD consult fee; so for me that is progress and NOW the system is working for ME here. If I was still in NY now, I would have to really think about whether I could afford to go back and seek help again from my LLMD and if I could afford tx and/or insurance, etc.etc...

So, there are PROS AND CONS. It's not all bad and it's not all good. But, on the whole, for the masses it is at best great, at worst poor yet adequate (i.e. you're not left on the street or without ANY treatment if you have no insurance). On the other hand, the system that holds the purse strings are not going to offer you the most expensive, experimental treatment, etc without you putting up a fight for it. Things are not as INSTANT here as they will be more reluctant to send a patient off immediately for a LOT of investigations before seeing if the symptoms are going to be something that will be gone in a couple of weeks without any investigations..........

I think there could be improvements to both the American profit based system, AND the UK (and most of Europe's socialized or subsidized) systems.........there should be a happy medium.

I do not believe health care should be a privilege for the privileged only, I do believe like education it should be a right and a 'given'. The thing is balance - how to make sure the profit based system does not produce too much greed and that the budget based system does not produce too many calloused or stingy 'carers'.......

In America, I can get whatever I want and fast, even if it is medically not necessary and even if it is very expensive and the test or treatment's risk outweigh's it's benefit.....I can get it if I can pay up for either the best insurance package or pay outright.... If I can't it's tough luck.
 

---

Posted by gridmonster (Member # 19280) on :
 
Life prolonging cancer drugs to be banned because they cost too much (UK)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1159506/Life-prolonging-cancer-drugs-banned-cost-much.html

Congress Wants to Restrict Drug Access due to cost

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123241385775896265.html

Woman "too old" for hip surgery in Canada

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123413701032661445.html
 

---

Posted by gridmonster (Member # 19280) on :
 
Sweden's Government Health Care

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/09/SwedensGovernmentHealthCare.htm
 

---

Posted by dontlikeliver (Member # 4749) on :
 
Like I said, there's pros and cons and I'm actually living with and using both systems at the same time as a dual national travelling back and forth.

Neither is great. In the UK there's the option of opting in (default) to the NHS, or opt out, get private insurance/medical care (and even then you still have a right to your free healthcare if you want it). In the US, there's no such choice. If there was a 'socialized' system of some kind, I would still feel there should be a CHOICE to opt out of it and buy your insurance and go private, if you want to. Why HAVE TO be BOXED into either system. Aren't most of us believers in choice?

Perhaps I should mention that I have also spent about a decade living in Sweden. I survived that too as have all my relatives there. They have a very good standard of living and low rates of MRSA, etc, just for instance. Let's try to include the positive too.

BUT, let me just point out that I would not give much 'weight' to anything written in the Daily Mail any more than I would the National Enquirer or the Star. It's a tabloid paper that is not comparable to say The New York Times or Wall Street Journal.
 

---

Posted by lymeric (Member # 16465) on :
 
Nice take on things, Dontlikeliver. Something I didn't pick up

from your post but experienced from many years living in

France, was the care substandard to that in the US. No

comparison, really. Adequate care was available through a

system somewhat less impressive than our own Veteran's

Administration medical system. (A socialized medical care

offering of our country's largest socialized institution.)


By substandard I mean procedures were left undone or

completed to a standard reflecting ours decades earlier. Actual

techniques and treatments for many conditions, common and

otherwise, were ones we had abandoned long before in lieu of

modern, newer medical practice. (Not always a good thing.)


Ironically, half way through your pros my head voice was saying

what about the seriously higher post-treatment infection rates

under socialized medicine. (Once again like the VA.) Your very

next sentence was about your friend's infected Hickman line.


It is said a country's health care can be judged by the condition

of its people's teeth. All who've been abroad can establish their

own affinity to this observation. Personally, my girlfriend at the

time had work completed in France that her dentist in the States

said was only half-finished. (He "completed" the work.) This was

typical, and why most French who could afford to chose

american-trained dentists.


Another way to judge a society is how the elderly are treated. In

2003 15,00 +/- elderly died in France due to conditions

substandard to the US during a heat wave. 80% of nursing

homes (and many hospitals) had no air-conditioning. Today, the

government - working with the health care system - has passed

a law that every nursing home and hospital must have at least

one air-conditioned "area of refuge" for elderly to gather.


Anecdotally, I know far more horror stories out of the socialized

system then ours in the US. This needs to be considered through

the understanding that I have much more experience with the

American system than any other.


James, ironically for you, France's socialized medical system

influenced that government's decision to ban Fipronil use in part

because of concerns for human health. And they invented it.
 

---

Posted by lymemomtooo (Member # 5396) on :
 
Our family has many friends in a choir in Wales. One had some type of throat cancer and could no longer speak. He was told if he could get some type of voice box, he would be able to speak. But he was not eligable in Wales to do that even if he could pay for it.

We were contacted and asked to order it in the US and ship it to him. WE did it for him.

Also another friend had cancer and could not, even after begging and her US DR brother in law demanding for her, get an appointment in time to get life saving help..

Our system is broken but don't expect the socialized one to be better. Expecially if you are older. lmt
 

---

Posted by dontlikeliver (Member # 4749) on :
 
Lymeric,

I definitely agree with some of those things - such as cheaper procedures being done due to budget issues when it comes to NHS. It's not the lack of existence of technology, as you can choose private medical care and get 'all the bells and whistles', if you can afford that. But, the British on principle feel resentful or adverse to paying for something, which for the last sixty years has been free- and PREVIOUSLY in decades past, was of the highest standard....now more people using it (including medical tourists from all over the world who come to abuse the system) so the funds are not there to provide EXCELLENT levels of care at ALL LEVELS.

I have no experience of health care in France, so I cannot comment on that - though I have noted not great teeth on many occasions while there (most people still also smoke there it seems).

But, I can say with confidence that dental care in Sweden and people's teeth are excellent - I visit there regularly also ...you won't see gaps there (in their mouths). Whereas you will see gaps in the UK because the dental care is mostly not NHS funded and the UK population has a mentality - and I am GENERALIZING here, sadly, often of if it ain't free, we ain't payin' 'cause it's our 'right'......and therefore they neglect their teeth because they 'feel' they can't afford it or won't pay 'extra' on principle. I disagree with myself and I consider dental health (not to mention, presentation) VERY important and never squabble about paying for it or cut corners on what I buy/what care etc. (BTW, braces are free for kids as is dental care. My child currently has such 'free' braces and they work just like same braces her cousin has in New York).

Yes, my friend got an infected Hickman line months into her chemo, but that was not the fault of any other person...or system. It just happened, as it can happen in the USA or any other place - it's the risk of having a Hickman. (she herself is an ex-intensive care nurse and now a lawyer, so it wasn't ignorance or lack of knowledge, etc on her part), but cr*p sometimes happens, anywhere and when a linen gets infected it can happen QUICKLY. As Lyme patients especially, we know that there are such risks with lines anyway. My point about mentioning the Hickman was not that "in the UK it got infected" it was that immediate treatment did not depend on her ability to pay.

Norway is another country where the system is not like the American system, yet they have, I believe the WORLD's lowest rate of hospital acquired infection rates. So, that can't be due to the system, but the individuals within that system....

So, I'm not saying everyone has to be forced into one system or another, but why not have the choice to go 'national' or 'private'. At least then those who cannot afford private insurance, or whose employers do not offer it are not left without care, even if they have accept that tests and procedures may not be as instant or comprehensive at the first hurdle? At least if they fell and broke their leg, they could still get that done and receive no bill for it.

I am not trying to, nor am I going to, argue about anything. Like I said, I am just giving a perspective from a user/receiver of both systems....and, ironically also in the past of the Swedish socialized system (which is now partly private anyway).
 

---

Posted by Geneal (Member # 10375) on :
 
I do think that health care costs are super inflated.

I do believe the same for prescription medicines.

While I think there needs to be a type of standard

To keep prices from being artificially inflated,

I also want to choose my doctor when and where I want to.

My private health insurance doesn't even pay for my LLMD.

He takes insurance.

Still, it is my choice whether to go to the LLMD and pay for the appointment.

That is the point of living in America.

Choices and freedom.

The government is already too involved playing "big brother".

While I think we need health care cost standards,

I certainly don't believe we need "big brother"

Mandating when, where and how illness should be treated.

I saw a bumper sticker on a car the other day that said

"I work....so you don't have to."

While this is not always possible with Lyme (I didn't work for 2 years)

The point is still valid.

Too many people wanting someone else to "take care of them."

It's the something for nothing mentality.

It is extremely pervasive here in the South.

Afte Obama was elected I could go to Target and hear the workers

Stating how he was going to "pay for their gas and food."

I kid you not.

I think that my health is just that. Mine.

I want to make the decisions that involve my care.

If I were a part of "socialized" medicine,

I would never (and I mean never) been diagnosed with Lyme.

How much do you think a Western Blot by Quest or Labcorp costs?

Plus the results of the tests are too often the basis of

Whether you get diagnosed or not.

Just think of where we would all be given the standard 21 days of treatment.

This is looking at the big picture.

My grandmother will probably die from a cancer

That most often goes into remission with chemo and radiation.

So, in effect, the government is making decisions that

Directly affect her life......and death.

Even if you have no insurance here in the US,

There are hospitals that cannot turn you away.

Think of the multitudes of people who already believe

Their docs to be all knowing.

Please don't mistake that I am targeting those of us

For whom health care is too expensive.

The healthcare for my family costs more a month

Than my mortgage on my brand new house.

Yikes!

By the Grace of God we have managed to financially survive

During the time that I was too ill to work.

I just think that socializing health care takes my freedom of choice

Completely out of the picture.

My family immigrated to the US just for that freedom.

Hugs,

Geneal
 

---

Posted by dontlikeliver (Member # 4749) on :
 
Geneal,

I agree, it's about freedom of choice. So, why should that not include the freedom to choose, for Americans, a middle ground. National health care for those who cannot afford or have access through their employer to have private medical insurance? The other option American's are left with as it is right now is 'nothing'. So, we (in the USA) have an all or nothing system right now. Why not have a Best, Adequate and 'nothing' system instead. That is still consdering FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Nobody would be forced to choose National, and nobody would be forced to be left with 'Nothing' (such as sell your house if you have cancer to pay for chemo), etc...But, there would be a choice two health care systems, or if you wish, the 'nothing' system, which is pay it all yourself, or suffer or lose your house/posessions, etc.

The misconception here is also that, for instance, the NHS "socialized system" is free. It is not FREE. Every person pays their insurance dues for it - it's called National Insurance. So, again, like in America, this is either paid by the employer (but is a legal requirement for an employer to pay), or if you work for youself, you pay your own National Insurance contributions. When I have used the word free, as I explained above, it means "free at the point of entry", which means you do not have to pay up front/on the spot and you do nto get an invoice, because it's pre-paid through the National Insurance payments you already make or your employer makes for you.

Now, with a recession, on both sides of the pond, statements such as "I work so you don't have to" may not be an option for many people who up till now have been very privileged as equally those who were not very privileged......whether they were privileged or not, more and more people are losing their jobs, and insurance = medical care = assets, etc through no fault of their own. They're not quitting their jobs to take advantage of someone else working 'for' them so they can have something free..... but everyone's losing.

So, even those who've had it all 'cause they worked hard and had good insurance through their job, or could afford it privately, may no longer have that 'privilege'.... so, is it wrong then to have a third option for the growing number of people in this 'box'? (National care option). Or do we accept as good enough that you either are privileged and 'get' or too bad if you lost your job, lost everything and then do not even have a "national" option to fall back on??

I'm sure we'd all pick the best private and expensive care as first choice, so that we have the most choice and the most testing and most expensive meds, etc.... but if we're not in a position to get that for whatever reason, why be left with a choice of "too bad", rather than a middle ground?
 

---

Posted by lymeric (Member # 16465) on :
 
Yes. We are on the same page. Unfortunately, socialized medicine (like

other institutional counterparts and maybe democracy itself) has so far

proven incapable of escaping scale dependency relative to success in

quality of product. That is, what may work with 5 or 10 million people

(Norway & Sweden) gets more difficult as numbers and geographical area

increase (France 65 million) and many other factors.


One reason the Swedish system has changed is because despite better

than average socialized care - the Scandinavian model offering perhaps

the best socialized medical care ever - many Swedes were unhappy and

preferred specifically the American model.


You are right. The individuals within a system make a difference.

(Democracy seems to work best on the local level.) The attention of

personnel within a medical system will affect infection rates. I didn't wish

to assign blame for the Hickman infection, just noting irony. I assume -

perhaps wrongly, if so, my bad - that your friend was part of the

aforementioned socialized system; that her training and/or technique

played no role in her infection.

[ 03-06-2009, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: lymeric ]
 

---

Posted by lymeric (Member # 16465) on :
 
Let's also not forget the hugely important correlation between

countries' successful socialized medical efforts and their lack of

paying for their own (or other's) defense.
 

---

Posted by dontlikeliver (Member # 4749) on :
 
P.S. My ancestors also immigrated to America because conditions where they were, were terrible. However, there are so many levels of terrible to compare between the 1800's or early 1900's and now; it just doesn't compare. i.e. many things in America at that time of mass immigration, such as the hope of finding gold and riches and to just be able to eat, were a GREAT draw and reason to emigrate from places they were starving and struggling.

Now, many parts of the world from where such immigrants came, are rich and successful nations where perhaps our distant relatives have a quality of life comparable or even better than many descendants of immigrants to the USA.

Anyway, nothing's perfect and I am certainly not saying socialized is perfect.....but 100% private is not perfect ($$$$ can be tooooo motivational and leaves less privileged with nothing)...... with so many smart people out there I hope they can work out another alternative that helps more people, and makes more people more productive.....

And yes, probably the number of inhabitants in the USA make this all a more difficult task than a smaller nation. In fact, that may be part of the problem with the NHS in the UK "cracking"...it is a tiny island nation that could fit into the size of New York State, yet there are over 60million people using the system, plus thousands of visitors who come to the UK and then 'conveniently' get sick while here visiting..... hey ho.. I wish I was still 15 when I knew the answers to everything!
 

---

Posted by dontlikeliver (Member # 4749) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lymeric:
Let's also not forget the hugely important correlation between

countries successful socialized medical efforts and their lack of

paying for their own (or others) defense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AmandaM:
I strongly believe that basic hospital care and *basic* healthcare needs to be socialized by the government. Also Prescription coverage needs to be socialized. All this would mean is that we would be taxed so every citizen of this country (and visitors) would get basic hospital care and affordable prescriptions no matter who you are or what medication it is.

This is done in many other countries and it works. I have personally lived through the NHS in the UK and I was treated like gold even though I wasn't even a citizen. I got tons of presctriptions for �7.15 regardless of my insurance or what medication it was. 10 pills or 1000 pills. It was the same price all the time.

I feel it is a human right to have basic affordable health coverage. Period. This isn't a socialist issue it is a human rights issue. We need to step back and look at the big picture instead of only looking at only Lyme coverage.

Now -- when we take ourselves away from the big picture and look specifically into specialists and chronic illnesses -- we would have the ability to have private health insurance on top of the basic government healthcare we would all be getting. This is also how it is done in many other countries. Many jobs also offer supplemental health insurance plans.

This way --�at least people have the basic human right to seek a hospital for emergency care without financial question and will also get private specialist care (just like we do now)

This is 100% necessary for our society. 100%. I can not budge on this belief.

We really need to step back and look at the big picture.

---

 

---

Posted by lymeparfait (Member # 14268) on :
 
Don't be FOOLED into thinking you can get
something for nothing.

We will loose our ability to choose our

treatments...and many of us lymies actually get better with alternative combined with traditional

treatments...(doing our own thing) these treatments will not be freely available with the

new plan. We will still be paying with our own(less) money. And America (general population who trusts any MD) will just get sicker.

The only reason that our current system is not working is plain old "pride" and "greed". Think

about it.

Socialized medicine does not change that...it

will only change the quality of physicians

deciding to become Dr's and researchers...and

will change the quality of our general care.

Everything will look like a clinic for the

disadvantaged. It will only help those who need

the basic medical care...obgyn, allergies,

colds, childrens immunizations...etc NOT LYME!

Think about all the current government

run things and the quality output from

them...the postal service, the public school

system, the town services and the Division of Motor Vehicles.

Add our healthcare into that mix and expect to get

the same quality and service!

America...You voted for it... you got it!

I was just at a lecture featuring a German Cancer Dr.

who treats and has great success with putting it

into remission. She is here to educate other

american Dr's on the new, and successful

treatments in Germany. These treatments are not

free for all Germans...they are considered

alternative there...and are paid out of pocket

there. She treats American patients...

(celebrities)...who have had major success. They

have to look for patients who can afford their

treatments and can help with their research

efforts out of the Country!

Let's not confuse the great advances in medicine

in other countries with their socialized

medicine. They are two separate things!
 

---

Posted by dguy (Member # 8979) on :
 
I don't agree with the automatic "we deserve" notion. It's just too idealistic. Why should everyone else be forced to supply what some individual believes he or she is automatically entitled to? IMO, before making an entitlement demand on our society, a person should be sure they have already sufficiently contributed to it, else they seem spoiled and their demand seems selfish.

I feel that to be true even if the government's money well were overflowing with profits, something far from being the case at the moment. IMO, to demand even more handouts and entitlements, such as socialized medicine, during a time of fiscal trouble comes across as hubris.
 

---

Posted by Geneal (Member # 10375) on :
 
Please don't misunderstand that what I was using

As an example, unfortunately is the pervading attitude in the South for many.

I agree that times are very hard.

I agree that there may need to be a "type" of emergency insurance

That can cover you like unemployment can.

I know socialized medicine isn't free.

However, in my utopian world , I wouldn't mind

Having a "middle" ground, so long as it wasn't dictated by the government.

Look at our economy. Look at the stimulus package.

No earmarks. Yeah, that's because all of the pork was added in

Prior to the passage of the bill.

If it is added after the bill gets introduced it is an "ear mark".

It burns me to think that our monies being used to study the swamp mouse in San Francisco.

How many jobs will that create?

How many people could have been covered for insurance

For the 1.5 million that was designated for just that one study?

I too have benefitted from state run insurance.

Both of my children had medicaid after Katrina.

I also received 3 months of food stamps.

It was a God Send.

However, other than not being able to buy non-perishable items,

No one could dictate whether I spent the money on steak or hamburger.

Please don't believe that I am not a victim too of the economic times.

We are barely making ends meet.

Health care costs are a major part of our issues.

That and paying for food.

I mean I'd be rich if I didn't have to eat.

My mother has Medicaire (government run insurance, yes?)

She cannot get the medicine she needs.

She has to pay for it out of pocket.

So while she has paid into it all of her life,

The benefits are dictated.

Not as severe as social medicine, but still there.

I am for a change. Just not one run by our government.

Can you imagine what the ID ducks would put in their "national" data base

In regards to "chronic Lyme"?

"patient continues to believe he/she has Lyme symptoms.

Non-compliant with diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Patient is argumentative insisting on additional medication.

Patient clearly has issues regarding authority."

While this is just made up stuff, would you like any of these comments

To be accessed by any MD in the country?

I wish there were a really good answer.

Times are tough. Supposed to get tougher.

I guess we all just have to do what we have to in order to get by.

I hope you realize that the reference to the bumper sticker

I made was not about sitting in judgement for those who are truly

Suffering due to losing their jobs and having no other recourse.

It was not meant to be offensive or judgemental.

It is just an example of the prevailing mentality that exists in the South.

I apologize profusely if it came across in that way.

Sorry if I offended anyone.

It wasn't intended.

Maybe a flat tax program that allowed freedom in our health care.

Just paid all the premiums for us.

Socialized medicine just doesn't work that way....unfortunately.

Hugs,

Geneal
 

---

Posted by ugagal (Member # 18471) on :
 
When talking about nationalizing healthcare in the U.S. I ofter hear the terms "privileged" or "not privileged." I find these labels confusing.

I grew up in what many would consider a poor environment. My parents could not afford to pay for me to go to college. However, I studied hard in school, earned scholarships, and worked while attending college. These endeavors allowed me the opportunities to have a career which offered healthcare insurance as one of the benefits.
Does this somehow make me "privileged?"

I thought it made me an AMERICAN! I thought it meant I was pursuing the American dream.
 

---

Posted by METALLlC BLUE (Member # 6628) on :
 
I agree with Obama's plans thus far. I support Universal Coverage and the goal he's gradually trying to reach.

It is peculiar to me that when someone with financial resources "lives" because they could afford appropriate medical care, while someone who doesn't have the financial means, dies or continues suffering onward until they expire as a direct result of lacking financial support.

I just performed a song called American Dream that involves the same concepts. Living it up while driving by homeless vetrans sleeping on the streets. Faces stare back at me while people live out of their cars because they sold their home for medical care, or because some other tragic event occurred. It gives new meaning to "Consumer" economy, when lives are consumed as those with more, take at the expense of those with less, and exploit them, displace them, outsource, insource -- whatever direction you want to take it.

It is quite obvious to me that our system is not only far from perfect, but(Capitalism) it inherently flawed and will inevitably collapse. There are better ways, but when those better ways are presented, everyone throws their arms up, because people don't like change, because those types of changes only come with revolutions in thought and action. Those who are comfortable in the upper class see no reason to change, those at the bottom throw their arms up because they say "I'm just one person, no one will listen to me." -- the middle class throws their arms up and says "I don't care about anyone else, I just want to feed my family." This is why things are the way they are, because "we" chose it. We're the ammunition to change it.

As long as technology continues to advance, machines will eventually displace most jobs that humans currently. do. Even Taxi drives will be a thing of the past soon. Building cars, almost exclusively machine built -- with far few people employed on the lines. The population is expanding, jobs are not, at least not fast enough. Yet all the while costs keep rising because of the inherent debt built into our system. None of our money is real. We just keep printing more when things aren't looking good, but you can't keep adjusting interest rates and printing money -- it will eventually snap beneath the pressure. We're seeing the consequences of my concept in action right now.

That's not my American Dream, and it doesn't feel like Freedom.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=53150289
 

---

Posted by dontlikeliver (Member # 4749) on :
 
Regarding my using the word privileged: I was using it in the context only of privileged enough to have private medical care whether provided through work or paying for it yourself.

Other than that, of course, the word can be interpreted many different ways because someone poor in America with running water would still be considered very privileged when compared to a "slumdog" kid in the slums of Mumbai who's having to scavenge garbage dumps to survive.
 

---

Posted by map1131 (Member # 2022) on :
 
No thank you. Anything government run is not where I want to be. Look at public housing. Having they done a wonderful job of housing people for lower rent.

I think everyone wants to live in these gov run public projects (in progress) housing?????

Healthcare is in need of overhaul, but IMO the government is not able to whip themselves out of a mess dealing with situations for years.

NO THANK YOU. Next idea?

Pam
 

---

Posted by dmc (Member # 5102) on :
 
We (the US) have three universal type health care

Medicare...Medicaid & the Veteran's Admin.

Has any of them helped you without a fight? These are example's why government run health programs do not work here.

Now just look the CDC "adopting" the IDSA guidlines for lyme treatment. You're gonna see that type of procedure with EVERY disease.

The government deciding what is "appropiate" treatment.

The FDA is hassling herbal companies. (I can see it if they make dubious claims)

Quackwatch will be the standard guide for government treatment ideas.

Look how doctors don't want to treat medicare patients...they do not get a decent compensation and they have to wait long periods of time to get the meager amount.

In the VA (I am in that system) you don't EVER get your lab results or reports even to give to another MD outside the VA system.

If you bring them reports showing positive for something, you still have to go through their channels to get the treatment. If their MDs say it's not so (such as Lyme).... you don't get the treatment.

People, we need to fix the health care but accusing the LLMDs or any patient seeing MD as being profit hungry is pure ignorant. (lack of knowledge not stupid)

I think the ones who work for insurance companies and those looking for patents are the profit hungry ones.

I wonder, how many insurance company MDs get bonuses for denying treatments? Look how many of their CEOs get bonuses when they lay-off hundreds.
 

---

Posted by groovy2 (Member # 6304) on :
 
Hi All--

Watch this PBS special called--

Sick Around the World --

The show compares 5 different countries
Health care systems --

Watching This one hour show will
almost make you a Expert on what needs
to be done --

You can watch complete show Online -Free-

After clicking the On Link below -
on the PBS page Click on Picture of the IV bag =
--( Yellow type)--Jay--


---- Click Here --
 

---

Posted by daystar1952 (Member # 3255) on :
 
My take on all this is that I wish we all had decent health care. The drug companies and insurance companies definitly rule the roost and that is not good. HOWEVER, people all over the world are experiencing the same scenerio with Lyme/ CFS, FM.....yada yada.

No one is getting effective treatmnet because as one poster mentioned...the drug companies make more profits on symptomatic treatments , rather than ones that cure.Most drug companies are international. So....what could this possibly mean?

If one looks at the medical industry and it's relation to the government, we notice that the drug companies are intimately intertwined with the government. A drug rep also told me that the insurance companies are in bed with the drug companies. This may explain why most preventative treatments, including even just oral antibiotics (cheap, compared to IV) are being kept from us.

It seems to me that what the insurance companies loose on one end , they make up for in symptomatic drug sales. I've heard that the insurance companies own vested interests in the drug companies. i've always wondered why there isn't an all out war between the two industries. Of course this is just speculation but it makes sense to me.

So....my main point is...if the drug companies are intertwined with the insurance companies.....why on earth would we want more govt control of our health? I'm not sure what the answer would be but i feel we are being coerced into accepting or clamoring for total control of govt. over our health.

I just think we need to think about all this more before we think there are no other solutions and that we have to accept the idea that it is the government's role to take care of us. The government is not a person. It is an entity and I don't think an entity loves us or has our best interests at heart.

What do you guys think?
 

---

Posted by luvs2ride (Member # 8090) on :
 
I want the government to stay out of my business.

dontlikeliver said:
"I believe there IS age-discrimination. My father in law was denied a second heart bypass at 75 on the grounds he wasn't well enough. He's 86 now and has made it this far without a second bypass BUT perhaps he would have had a better quality of life for the last 11 years if they had given him the second bypass rather than living with angina this long. He'd had a bypass when he was 68 and was fine for 7 years. We then found out that a bypass usually has a lifespan of 7 years anyway, then you need it redone in many cases...but if you're 'too old' that might take a fight. (and the British often don't like to make waves, especially the older generation)."

This is a grave danger,not only for elderly but also for the disabled. If you are not productive, the government may decide you are not worth the investment. Get it?

When you hand your life over to someone else to manage, you become a slave to that entity and you are counting 100% on the said entity to be fair, just, merciful and generous in its care of you.

Personally, I don't want it.

Medicaid already exists for the poor. Medicare for the elderly.

Who is missing out on insurance? I guess someone earning a living but lacking insurance as part of their employment benefit, right?

When employers first offered health insurance as a benefit, it was a good deal for everyone. Insuring a large group of people kept the costs low as most of the insured group were healthy and could carry the sick.

Then we began wellness care and people started running to the doctors for every little thing. After all, insurance was paying for it so why not?
Now, no one is well and everyone is running up medical costs.

Doctors and drug companies hiked up their prices because, afterall, insurance companies were paying for it.

And lets talk about the out and out cases of fraud.

Socialized medicine will cut this out, oh you can bet it will. Along with so many treatments we have available to us now.

Susan
 

---

Posted by gridmonster (Member # 19280) on :
 
Right on, luvs2ride. Well put.

And respectfully, for those of you that seem to think that healthcare is a "right", I'm just curious as to if you also think that food, water, and housing, are a "right" as well ?

After all...they're all 100% essential to the uniquely human process of staying alive. And, they've all gotten a lot more expensive, as well.
 

---

Posted by heiwalove (Member # 6467) on :
 
gridmonster, absolutely, food, water, and housing are fundamental rights as well. every human being deserves the basic amenities necessary to sustain health and life. i'm sure that anyone who advocates for universal health care also advocates for housing rights, food justice, environmental protection, safe & clean water.

'the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness,' remember? none of these are possible without adequate healthcare, housing, nutrition, and necessary support systems for those who need them.

certainly, universal healthcare isn't perfect. obviously it won't do a damn thing to help those of us with lyme. however, look outside yourselves & your own circumstances for a moment. i know how difficult that is when you're suffering, but it's also vital, i think, if we hope to forge a functioning and compassionate society.

we're taught in this country (US) that the individual is the most important component, the one aspect around which everything else should be organized. i submit that that notion is false and dangerous, that instead the COMMUNITY, our society as a whole, is what makes us who we are. if people are left to die because they don't have insurance, or because their insurance package is less than ideal (and if you don't think this happens, trust me, it does. even if you despise michael moore i think it would behoove everyone on this site to watch 'sicko'), then clearly we are failing miserably as a society and a nation.

some people are able to successfully pursue the so-called 'american dream'; others are not so lucky. there are manifold factors at play: race, class, poverty, culture, language, health, disability, the list goes on. i live in new york city, where i'm slammed with the ugly disparity daily: the poorest of the poor, folks who sleep outside on the sidewalk in frigid winter temperatures because there is no other option, coexist next to some of the wealthiest corporations & CEOs in the nation. in the same city, often within mere blocks of each other.

i hope with everything in me that obama begins the process of instituting some sort of universal care. if my beliefs make me a socialist, then so be it; i think they make me a humanist, someone who cares deeply about the suffering of her fellow citizens (and human beings across the globe, wherever they happen to reside).
 

---

Posted by Geneal (Member # 10375) on :
 
Just food for thought. Back in the 70's most local hospitals were non-profit.

That means that any monies they made doing treatment and such

Were put back into the hospital.

No profit margins.

Maybe there needs to be the same type of not for profit situations for all health care.

Just a thought.

Hugs,

Geneal
 

---

Posted by LindaInRhodeIsland (Member # 14727) on :
 
Our currently leaders are driving us into bankrupcy. They have failed to manage fannie, freddy, social security and virtually every government program is a web of inefficiency and waste.

Regardless of the pro/cons of socialized medicine in other countries, our current leaders are incabable of making a system that will be better than our current system.

Until, we clean house, eliminate all of the self-serving elite minded shmucks that are currently in DC, we are better off dealing with the health care system the way it is.

Here is an idea...we could drastically reduce health care costs in the US by capping medical malpratice lawsuits. If you win your case you can have $250,000 or an amount equal to your life insurance coverage at the time of the malpractice, whichever is greater. If you valued your life at $500,000 and purchased that much in coverage why should you get any more in a lawsuit?!?!? Malpractice insurance is a real problem here and costs the doctors a fortune. That would be an easy way to start and wouldn't involve the federal government.

My 2 cents.

Linda
 

---

Posted by dontlikeliver (Member # 4749) on :
 
Is education a 'right'? It seems to be more than a right. Parents are prosecuted for NOT educating their kids. But, it's Ok for poor families without access or funds for healthcare to let their kids 'die off' instead as long as they get/got their right to education? (perhaps slightly exaggerated case, but I don't see the logic personally in valuing the 'right' to education before life itself/health).

Without your health, what does education mean?

This could become a circular discussion that has no end, unfortunately. No, running water, electricity, etc is not a right either. Perhaps we should just go back to living in caves, foraging and letting the fittest survive, which would probably mean that most of us "Lymies" would die out pretty quickly.
 

---

Posted by dontlikeliver (Member # 4749) on :
 
As I said, I don't want this discussion to escalate beyond a certain point, which it has a tendency to do on Lymenet and it may get taken out of context (which is already is starting to) and get pulled; taking members with it. It would be nice to remain just as a discussion, bringing in all different people's different experiences around the world, using different systems.

I seem more or less alone on this thread, having the 'right' to and using both systems at the moment, which currently give me the best of both worlds IMO. My LLMD in the US and treatment in the UK on the 'socialized' system. My Malarone was $10/box. Would I prefer to pay the US price for it? Not really. It was a case of educating my GP; I was lucky he's 'seen the light'. But, if he was an American GP he would not necessarily be more likely to see the ILADS light.

There's good and bad to everything and everyone.
 

---

Posted by METALLlC BLUE (Member # 6628) on :
 
dontlikeliver. Who is your GP over seas? PM me?
 

---

Posted by luvs2ride (Member # 8090) on :
 
Dontlikeliver,

I love choices. But clearly you are having to come to America for your lyme treatment. Where will you go if America socializes their medicine?

Heiwalove, America is one of the most charitable countries on this earth. Absolutely, everyone is entitled to the basic needs of life and everyone who can get those needs on their own power is obligated to do so and God directed to never forget the poor, the widows and the orphans.

But when that becomes a Government Mandated practice, don't be shocked when the disabled are shuffled to the bottom of the heap. Afterall, you are a drain on society and Society must survive at the cost of some unlucky individuals. That is socialism! Hardly charitable.

LindainRhodeIsland,

I agree with you 100%. People want to say the pharmacutical companies and the insurance companies are greedy but they are in bed with the politians. Yes folks, the very same people you want to hand all our money and our healthcare choices over to.

Democrats are supposed to be for the little guy but they were the first to line up right alongside our "so called republican" president to hand a fortune over to corporations who had mismanaged and even swindled their way into the financial fiasco we are now in. Those corporations had plenty of help from our polititians both democratic and republican who paved the legislative way for them and pressured them into providing loans for people who could never pay it back. Capitalism has not been at work for a long time now, but greed has been operating without anyone to oversee and prevent it.

Right now, after so many Obama appointees have been found remiss in paying their own taxes, I would like to see an audit of every single polititian. Who else isn't paying their fair share?

You want equity and justice from our government?

GOOD LUCK!

Susan
 

---

Posted by Abxnomore (Member # 18936) on :
 
METALLlC BLUE I like your way of thinking. No system is perfect but the one we have is clearly

a diaster. If we put our minds to it, America could provide healthcare for everyone and perfect

the problems that other countries may have.

Healthcare should be an individual RIGHT and it

is disgraceful that we are the only industrialized
nation that does not take care of our sick. When

I go to Europe I can buy (not now with the demise of the dollar) American made drugs for pennies and
in the U.S. the very same drugs cost a fortune.

Now that our country is failing apart, many are reaccessing the urgent need for health care reform. How much longer can we burden industry with this cost and

expect them to be competitive when in every other
country industry does not have this burden??

Is there any wonder we can't compete. A country that provides health care for some and not ALL

is not AMERICA! Also we must look at this not only
from a Lyme perspective as we have a unique set of

issues but why should some one in their older years lose every thing they have worked for their entire life when they become old and ill before

the government will help them? You have to be broke before you can get medicaid. Medicare pays for a fractions of your medical costs and the

drug plan is a joke. Is this what America is really about. I don't think so.

WE CAN DO BETTER and government does not always have to be the enemy. The country voted for change because we need it.

If we don't change we will sink even further than we have already.
 

---

Posted by dontlikeliver (Member # 4749) on :
 
Luvs2ride

I come to NY to see an LLMD for the same reason people all over the US travel out of state for an experienced LLMD who has the guts to rx long-term abx. It's not that I couldn't get the abx here, I can now on the NHS, BUT there are no LLMD's with 20+ years experience in tickborne diseases here. So, my choice is based on the experience of he doctor himself, nothing else.

What my LLMD recommends, I then take back to the UK and my gp gives the meds to me 'free'.
 

---

Posted by zombie_mummy (Member # 17402) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ugagal:
Under socialized medicine get ready to wait 2 years for a MRI or other medically necessary test

Also, making any doctor's appt might mean waiting 6 months or longer.

There will be some important disadvantages!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kelmo:

There HAS to be a way for medical coverage to be available for all, but not cut back on the quality of care we have now.

---

quote:

---

Whatever happened to that belief?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ugagal:
Luvs2ride you are 100% correct! My wise grandfather always told me "If it looks too good to be true...then it probably is." I'm afraid there is going to be a very large group of Americans who will be greatly disappointed in the "FREE" government insurance.

Also, I was not raised to believe I was entitled to anything in this ole life and if I wanted better then I would have to work for it. Whatever happened to that belief?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ugagal:
Luvs2ride you are 100% correct! My wise grandfather always told me "If it looks too good to be true...then it probably is." I'm afraid there is going to be a very large group of Americans who will be greatly disappointed in the "FREE" government insurance.

Also, I was not raised to believe I was entitled to anything in this ole life and if I wanted better then I would have to work for it. Whatever happened to that belief?

---

Yes, but to REALLY understand something, usually one has to do more than LOOK or read or listen to someone else's opinion, which these days whatever you read is someone else's opinion, and if it's in the press or news it usually focusses on any NEGATIVE experience or aspects and ignores the positive.......so, naturally the 'masses' take someone else's second or third hand experience as a truth that is going to apply to all from here on out.

I know it's not possible, but the only way to really be able to know and weigh up these things is to try the different options. Most Americans won't or are not in a position to go galavanting around the world and gain access to sample their different systems. Most of my OWN family in America do not have passports and don't care to know about, or visit, nations and systems outside the only one they know, or THINK they know because why should they - they KNOW all they need to know from the comfort of their own armchair, watching FOX news or whatever - that's virtually as good as real experience, I suppose. Is the lack of curiosity or hunger for knowledge and experience and not 'exercising' critical thinking because of 'what'.....or because America has everything and knows how to do everything right already? If we want to keep up with the rest of the world we have to re-examine some traditions and beliefs which may not really apply any more, at least not in that they are going to bring POSITIVE CHANGE to most Americans.

Anyway, we're not going to solve the problems of the world or healthcare through Lymenet. I have the best of both worlds from where I am, so I am not sure why I'm making so much noise from here!! I've been off Lymenet for ages and perhaps now I should crawl back into my 'hole'....
 

---

Posted by dontlikeliver (Member # 4749) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by luvs2ride:
Dontlikeliver,

I love choices. But clearly you are having to come to America for your lyme treatment. Where will you go if America socializes their medicine?

Heiwalove, America is one of the most charitable countries on this earth. Absolutely, everyone is entitled to the basic needs of life and everyone who can get those needs on their own power is obligated to do so and God directed to never forget the poor, the widows and the orphans.

But when that becomes a Government Mandated practice, don't be shocked when the disabled are shuffled to the bottom of the heap. Afterall, you are a drain on society and Society must survive at the cost of some unlucky individuals. That is socialism! Hardly charitable.

LindainRhodeIsland,

I agree with you 100%. People want to say the pharmacutical companies and the insurance companies are greedy but they are in bed with the politians. Yes folks, the very same people you want to hand all our money and our healthcare choices over to.

Democrats are supposed to be for the little guy but they were the first to line up right alongside our "so called republican" president to hand a fortune over to corporations who had mismanaged and even swindled their way into the financial fiasco we are now in. Those corporations had plenty of help from our polititians both democratic and republican who paved the legislative way for them and pressured them into providing loans for people who could never pay it back. Capitalism has not been at work for a long time now, but greed has been operating without anyone to oversee and prevent it.

Right now, after so many Obama appointees have been found remiss in paying their own taxes, I would like to see an audit of every single polititian. Who else isn't paying their fair share?

You want equity and justice from our government?

GOOD LUCK!

Susan

---

I will still go to my LLMD in NYS. Why shouldn't I? As I live outside the US and I have the choice now as I would in the future, I will choose to carry on seeing him as a paying customer because as I do not reside full-time in the USA at the moment and am paying into the UK 'national insurance pot'; I would not be 'entitled' to use the US one at the same time.

Anyway, I think we all agree that SOMETHING needs to be done and can focus on our similarities rather than differences there. I think I've said more than my fair share and will 'bow out' here.

Good wishes to all

DLL

[ 03-08-2009, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: dontlikeliver ]
 

---

Posted by Abxnomore (Member # 18936) on :
 
Don'tlikeliver....It's a breath of fresh air

to know there are still some who go out of

their way to understand the issues, don't get them

from FOX news, and is objective and open minded

and has experienced the world. Americans for too

long have had a very narrow view or the world and

their own society. That is why our new president

is the right man at the right time. He has a cross

cultural 21st century view. Too bad he became

president and inherited the worst mess ever.


Has anyone every wondered why the U.S. and

and England are doing the worst right now with

regard to the

banking situtation and the recession...Regan and

Thatcher....same polices got them there.

The other European countries are faring much

better and they are

mostly sufferering the repercussions of

America's economic collaspe that has affected

the entire global economy. Addressing health care

is critical to getting America back on its feet,

along with the 10 million other things that need

to be fixed.
 

---

Posted by omgwtfbbq (Member # 15446) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by gwenb:

2. People n Canada do not go bankrupt from paying for health care. A close friend of mine was diagnosed with late-stage cancer and received top notch care for 18 months for free (aside from the $60 health premium we pay). He is fully recovered.

---

quote:

---

If we get universal healthcare any Jose or Jesus down in Mexico that's got cancer or something serious will just cross the border and buy some papers so they can get free US medical care.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abxnomore:
omgwtfbbq What about all the Americans who went to Mexico and Canada to by cheap medications, all U.S.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Abxnomore:
The problem is not the people who come here illegally, it is the government who has not enforced its immigration policy and has turned a blind eye because it benefits business because they pay less for labor and don't have to pay for any benefits. They pay in cash (which is illegal) and don't have to pay taxes to the government associated with employing employees

Complain and get active in your government, don't blame people who are doing what they can to better their lives. If our country had a sensible immigration policy and enforced it, then they would not be in this country illegally. Our government has not enforced its immigration policy in years, they have knowingly looked the other way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by map1131:
Sure they'd love to climb that roof in 95 degrees and shingle that roof?

---

I have seen MANY highly skilled construction workers lose their jobs because they couldn't compete price wise with contractors that used illegal workers. The average idiot doesn't know enough about home repair to realize the truly ****ty job the unskilled illegals are doing and how it will eventually harm their home. If you hire a contractor that uses large amounts of day laborers you NEED to be there watching the process constantly to ensure the work done is at minimum up to building code. So yes, I know of many people that'd be up on a hot roof, framing, running wires, etc. if they could but most people would rather pay less now and a LOT more later to fix it. If you don't have a large unskilled workforce chances are that over half your work as a contractor will be fixing the crap the other people left behind. Now that the POS McMansions are no longer selling hopefully the illegals will go back where they came from for lack of work. I WOULD NOT buy a home built in the last 10 years unless it was built by a a small luxury home builder or the homeowner and I could inspect it extensively.
 

---

Posted by groovy2 (Member # 6304) on :
 
Hi All

Watch this PBS program --Sick Around the World--

It is Very Good -- they show how mwdical systems
in 5 different countries work--

On the PBS page --click on the words
--Watch full program Online-- (in yellow type)

--Jay--

Click here to watch Video --
 

---

Posted by Abxnomore (Member # 18936) on :
 
Clearly you don't get it. If companies didn't hire them illegally, in essence breaking the law, for cheap labor and the government enforced the immigration laws we would not have this problem.

If there were than a labor storage in certain areas, we could use properly documented legal immigrants to fill the vacancies.

So it is not the fault of the illegals, it is the fault of your fellow man who knowingly hires them illegally and your government who has for years turned a blind eye knowing there has been a problem and did nothing about it.

Now just tell me how that is spilling hate????
 

---

Posted by nomoremuscles (Member # 9560) on :
 
omgwtfbbq said:


"I have seen MANY highly skilled construction workers lose their jobs because they couldn't compete price wise with contractors that used illegal workers. The average idiot doesn't know enough about home repair to realize the truly ****ty job the unskilled illegals are doing and how it will eventually harm their home. If you hire a contractor that uses large amounts of day laborers you NEED to be there watching the process constantly to ensure the work done is at minimum up to building code. So yes, I know of many people that'd be up on a hot roof, framing, running wires, etc. if they could but most people would rather pay less now and a LOT more later to fix it. If you don't have a large unskilled workforce chances are that over half your work as a contractor will be fixing the crap the other people left behind. Now that the POS McMansions are no longer selling hopefully the illegals will go back where they came from for lack of work. I WOULD NOT buy a home built in the last 10 years unless it was built by a a small luxury home builder or the homeowner and I could inspect it extensively."

Oh, were it that simple!

On one point I agree: I would not, assuming I had a nickel, buy a home built in the last ten years, hell, I'll go further and say fifteen.

But this problem is not the fault of illegals. It is true, yes, that there is ****ty work going on by people unqualified to do the trades, mostly illegals. And it is also true that builders no longer pay enough to entice American workers (assuming, that is, that Americans want to do this work). And it is also true that these trades no longer pay a living wage.

But why?

Back in the 70s-80s an average tradesman was able to earn enough to support a family on his wages, without his wife having to work. He (and I say he, because, in my experience, there were no shes in the trades at the time ... okay, there was ONE she that I knew of) was able to do this while working for a builder, or plumbing contractor, or painter, or mason, etc., and making a decent wage. He didn't have to be in business for himself. And these were small to average-sized non-union shops.

But then something happened. The unions began to crumble. And with them went the living wage. It was a gradual slide. But, in my experience, it had been the union shops that held up the wages for the others, the non-union workers, mostly doing residential construction. Over a period of years I watched the building trades fall apart, and by the early nineties, right after Reagan's reign, all the big non-union shops, in most cases family owned, were gone. After this, their employees were taking any job they could get, oftentimes for much lower pay, and benefits? --HA.

When there was no forced need to hold wages to living standard, competition became fierce. Business types entered into construction, hiring the cheapest labor they could find. So now instead of tradesmen running the show, you had 'builders' with MBAs who'd never swung a hammer in their lives. Quality workmanship went out the window. Everything was: more for less. Squeeze twenty-five nickels out of a dollar; no one is to make any money but the guy at the top. Eight hour days became twelve hour days, at less pay. The houses went up like lightening. And just like everything else in the last few decades, a handful got EXTREMELY rich while everyone else got extremely screwed. (The models of manufacturing and big box stores probably follow a similar trajectory.)

I saw one contractor after another who tried to play by the old rules get crushed. The market had changed, the customers demanded more for less, and anyone doing quality work could not compete -- quality work is expensive. So, unless you were in business for yourself, a very small operation, one man and a helper or two -- at much lower wages -- and willing to work with the tools forever, not to mention longer hours and harder, you were out. Sorry!


And because the average customer has no idea what to look for, they had no idea they were getting crap. They look at two contracts -- one of them for $25,000 less -- and see that both say granite countertops, and both say venting skylights, and both say copper gutters and leaders, and assume all is equal. When, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
 

---

Posted by Boomerang (Member # 7979) on :
 
Good thread. I think socialized medicine in the U.S. is going to be a disaster...... and certainly not free!
 

---

Posted by Abxnomore (Member # 18936) on :
 
It's never free no matter what country you live in.

In every country whether it is thru taxes or thru

a fixed cost there is always an amount charged.

But it is minimal compared to what we pay for

coverage.
 

---

Posted by Abxnomore (Member # 18936) on :
 
Obama is not talking about socialized medicine, never did, never campaigned on that issue.

It's AFFORDABLE health care for all but not government run.

It will be a while before the details are worked out

and we see what gets passed thru congress but IT

NEVER WAS INTENDED TO BE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.
 

---

Posted by kelmo (Member # 8797) on :
 
Abxnomore...you are deluded. Obama wants government controlled everything so that Amercican can think it's getting all that Lymeparfait stated her her post (which I thought was EXCELLENT).

map, you are correct, we need to quit blaming the Bush administration for every ill this country has incurred.

If that's the case, you can blame the rise of oral STD's on Clinton.

This thread got way off track from the original intent. We have seen some horrific doctors over the course of this illness. And, I don't want the government deciding which doctor I can see, which treatment I can have, or if I'm not qualified to receive treatment because my productive time on this earth is up, anyway.
 

---

Posted by bettyg (Member # 6147) on :
 
i haven't followed this thread nor the replies; but noted it was about health care in usa.

i heard on the news this morning that obama is having 5 HEALTH MEETINGS IN 5 DIFFERENT STATES ONLY.


IOWA IS BLESSED TO BE MARCH 23; location to be determined! *******************************

I hope it is Des Moines and I WILL TRY TO MAKE IT THERE REPRESENTING US CHRONIC LYME AND CO-INFECTION PATIENTS!!

will update you more as i hear more on tv/radio/newspapers. betty, iowa activist
 

---

Posted by Abxnomore (Member # 18936) on :
 
Nope, I am not deluded. I have followed his campaign closely and I follow politics very closely.

No one knows yet what congress will pass but as of yet no one is talking about socialized medicine, but affordable health care for all.

I guess we all have to sit tight, have a positive attitude for the good of the country, give our new president a chance to make his case after his team finishing bringing together the experts from all fields of the industry and see what they propose. Then seeking what gets thru congress is quite another matter.

To speculate that we are going to have socialized medicine that won't work is pure speculation at this point.
 

---

Posted by Melodymaker (Member # 16434) on :
 
So, if people have a RIGHT to medical care, drugs, food, water, etc. etc...

Does that mean they have no obligation to try and provide those things for themselves?

It seems to me that the American Way is the "opportunity" to provide these things for yourself.

I do not agree that everyone has the right to everything they need for their optimal wellbeing, without having to contribute to that.

Our system isn't perfect, but by God I sure dont' want the government deciding what treatment I can have, and whether or not I deserve to live or die. And that's what it will come to.

It's the governmental agencies that are making it so difficult for us to get proper care now. Giving them total control over the health care system would be a nightmare!

[ 03-10-2009, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: Melodymaker ]
 

---

Posted by ThatColorGreen (Member # 16016) on :
 
ummmm yea, i'm going to say absolutely not.

anyone remember when hawaii tried it out for kids? the system went bankrupt after only 6 months.

and forget about getting any type of testing done.

at least we can still get our mris and gp appmnts.

with obamas plan, good luck with that whole 'appointment making, doctor seeing' business.

and oh yea. it doesnt matter what the 'priority' is of a patient, its a wait in line system...

plus the fact that a "Basic" plan is wanting to be implimented.

We're all very educated people here on lymenet and know exactly what "basic coverage" means.

so yea.. absolutely not.

~Green~
 

---

Posted by LisaS (Member # 10581) on :
 
i agree wtih you James!
 

---

Posted by liesandmorelies (Member # 15323) on :
 
I guess I am confused as I have read estensively and what President Obama is proposing is "Affordable" health care, not "free".

There is a big difference and it seems like many are throwing around the word "Free" in lieu of the word "affordable"

Can someone please direct me to where he is propsoing "Free" as opposed to "affordable"?

I have not read that anywhere, but keep hearing it here from ppl.

Thanks!
 

---

Posted by liesandmorelies (Member # 15323) on :
 
Betty,

I too am excited that President Obama is visiting various states regarding the health care situation. I hope he goes to Des Moines so you can give us all a voice.

I had heard on the news that they were trying to pick states that would well represent the diversity of our country.

Hope you get a chance to go. I have relatives in Des Moines and my cousin and his wife are both doctors in Iowa and they told me they are very excited about some of the changes in the health care system that may be coming.
 

---

Posted by Abxnomore (Member # 18936) on :
 
Obama NEVER campaigned on FREE health care or UNIVERSAL health care or SOCIALIZED health care or
GOVERNMENT run health care.

He talked about AFFORDABLE health care with CHOICE, not GOVERNMENT dictated and making the system more efficient and less costly, so that the people who

are uninsured or cannot afford health care can have it. Those who have it and like it he has always said are free to keep the heath care they

have if they like it. He is trying to address a very urgent need in American Society........lack

of access to health care for too so many and to make it more cost effective and work more effectively for everyone and more efficiently.
 

---

Posted by bettyg (Member # 6147) on :
 
liesandmore,

if your cousin hears more about this march 23 in IOWA, location unknown, as to PLACE and time this will happen, please email me!!!

this is very important to me...i want to go!
 

---

Posted by liesandmorelies (Member # 15323) on :
 
Betty,

I will let you know if I hear anything at all.
 

---

Posted by liesandmorelies (Member # 15323) on :
 
Abxnomore,

Thanks for responding. That is exactly what I have read and followed very closely. This whole thing has been about "affordability", which the current system is not.

I think everyone can at least agree that the current system is very broken and needs major repairs. We have tried the current system for many years and it's not working. There is absolutely nothing democratic about only serving some ppl, while turning a blind eye on manny of the hard working people who are truly the backbone of this country. And, as you mentioned, noone is forcing anyone to take the new healthcare. If you are happy with what you have then keep it. I see this as competition, which is pure capitalism so why all the discord???
 

---

Posted by bettyg (Member # 6147) on :
 
liesandmore,

i'm so mad!! i've been listening and reading the newspaper about next MONDAY'S HEALTH thing in iowa for obama.


i finally called our 1 des moines tv station and asked them; yes, they had all the info and gave me part saying to call IOWA'S GOV. CHET CULVER'S OFFICE; he's the one heading this up next monday 10-12 am at POLK COUNTY CONVENTION downtown.


the kicker! there was a lottery of tickets and it ENDED NOON TODAY! can't remember if i called newsstation at 1130 or 1230.


woman gave me cut off time but said for me to email someone else in her office IN CHARGE OF PUTTING THIS TOGETHER; so i wrote and emailed 1 page. it came back; woman didn't specify something on ending; so i called again.


it went this time and i'm waiting if i can go or not!! gosh darn it!
 

---

Posted by liesandmorelies (Member # 15323) on :
 
OH Betty, I am so sorry. I was really hoping that you would be able to attend. You would really represent all the Lyme folks so well.

I hope you hear from them soon.... I wish I lived in Iowa and I would come pick you up and take us both there.
 

---

Posted by bettyg (Member # 6147) on :
 
lies, so far; the woman hasn't returned an email to me. i also put on my email to them that i volunteered 2 months of saturdays data entering the door to door campaigning going on for the democrates; his/my party! i'll see but i'm NOT holding my breath.
 

---

Posted by liesandmorelies (Member # 15323) on :
 
Lets keep our fingers crossed Betty !!!
 

---

Posted by bettyg (Member # 6147) on :
 
lies, i was deleting older notes today and came acrost it, so i forwarded it REQUESTING a reply that she even received it! no comments yet, but i'm NOT done trying!
 

---

Posted by liesandmorelies (Member # 15323) on :
 
You are awesome Betty. You are such a go-getter!!!
 

---

Posted by bettyg (Member # 6147) on :
 
lies, shall we just say bull-headed and PERSISTANT; the squeaky wheel gets greased.

earlier today i heard something about this lottery and i wasn't prepared but they said to still call a 1-800 no. for the lottery!!

how dare they after telling me i was too late for cutoff date? doesn't make sense.

off to check that site for tv station i heard it on...
 

---