Group Calls for Universal Health Coverage

[cal04]

The federal government should guarantee that all Americans have basic health insurance coverage, says a committee set up by Congress to find out what people want when it comes to health care. ``Assuring health care is a shared social responsibility,'' says the interim report of the Citizens' Health Care Working Group, a 14-member committee that went to 50 communities and heard from 23,000 people.

The committee describes its recommendations as a framework. The recommendations don't say who would pay for universal health coverage or how much it would cost. The concept of government-guaranteed coverage runs counter to the Bush administration's position that consumers should bear more responsibility for their initial medical
expenses. The group's findings will be officially presented to the president and Congress in the fall, but first comes 90 days of public comment. The president will submit to Congress his response, and then five congressional committees will hold hearings.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said he and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, came up with the idea for establishing a group that would work outside of Washington to find out what Americans want. He said they were tired of years of gridlock on health care issues. ``We decided, let's try something else. Let's go to the public and give them a chance, not in terms of writing a bill, but let them provide a kind of general roadmap where the country ought to head,'' Wyden said. Wyden said he will wait to hear the public's comments on the report before reaching any conclusions about the findings. However, some groups are already wary.

``It implies massive new funding sources, massive new laws would be needed,'' said Sarah Berk, executive director of Health Care America, an advocacy group that pushes free market approaches to health coverage. ``We want universal access, but this report just pushes all the difficult problems onto somebody else's plate. It says government needs to do it all.'' George Grob, the executive director of the Citizens' Health Care Working Group, said the group was not asked to say specifically how to get to universal coverage. However, the group did recommend that financing strategies be based on principles of fairness and shared responsibility. The strategies should draw on revenue streams such as enrollee contributions, income taxes, so-called ``sin taxes'' and payroll taxes, the report said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5871503,00.html

[paparush]

1. OMG!! No way!! Say not So!! Not in 'Murkah..there's more important

stuff to do like line the pockets of the Have More's with EVEN MORE! There's a war to buy and elections to pay for. That kind of corruption doesn't come cheap.

[eppur_se_muova]

2. Hey, even CNN is reporting this ... they must not've gotten the memo.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/06/07/universal.coverage.ap/index.html

Americans want universal health coverage, group says
Report doesn't say who would pay for such a plan, or its cost

Wednesday, June 7, 2006; Posted: 7:12 p.m. EDT (23:12 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal government should guarantee that all Americans have basic health insurance coverage, says a committee set up by Congress to find out what people want when it comes to health care.

"Assuring health care is a shared social responsibility," says the interim report of the Citizens' Health Care Working Group, a 14-member committee that went to 50 communities and heard from 23,000 people.

The committee describes its recommendations as a framework. The recommendations don't say who would pay for universal health coverage or how much it would cost. The concept of government-guaranteed coverage runs counter to the Bush administration's position that consumers should bear more responsibility for their initial medical expenses.

The group's findings will be officially presented to the president and Congress in the fall, but first comes 90 days of public comment. The president will submit to Congress his response, and then five congressional committees will hold hearings.
***

[aquart]

4. CNN? I'm shocked. Seriously.

[lavenderdiva]

14. here's the CNN link:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/06/07/universal.coverage.ap/index.html

[aquart]

3. How come this is in the UK Guardian?

Isn't any news source willing to talk about it here?

And, good golly, Orrin, are you shocked to find out we want health care? You made damn sure YOU have coverage.

[lavenderdiva]

15. please see my post #14

the CNN weblink is there...

[dempsterholland]

5. RE:

It should be emphasized that universal health care should be cheaper than the existing system. There are no sales commissions, no profits to pay to stockholders and no excessive executive salaries. Doctors will have to deal with only one reviewing authority, rather than the multitude of insurance companies as is now the case. Any increase in taxes will simply amount to a substitution of tax payments for health care premiums. Adoption of a universal health care system is probably the most effective way to reduce health care costs.

[KC21304]

6. You got that right.

If we could get universal health care AND public campaign financing we would be well on our way to solving most of the problems in this country.

[chill_wind]

9. Right on!

Plus one more crucial thing: mandatory verifiable voting paper trail.

Edit to add: restoring far more financial aid/moneys to education at all levels. Okay that was 2 more things.

[Brigid]

7. Exactly.

We have the most expensive, inefficient health care system in the civilized world. I used to work the phones for a large health insurance company, and it is just unbelieveable, the stuff I ran into. I worked for the individual business unit, which means people who obtain and pay for their own policies. If you have any "pre-existing conditions," you may not be able to get it at all, and even if you are healthy the cost is prohibitive. I had more than one customer tell me their monthly premium was more than their mortgage payment. And it was not at all unusual for a claim to sit in "medical review" for months, resulting in the provider turning the bill over to a collections agency and damaging the customer's credit rating. And the whole bureaucracy of the company seemed to be working against me when I tried to get problems straightened out. Whenever I did manage to get something done, I felt as though I had just won a major battle. Finally I quit out of sheer frustration.

Health care is also the only industry where competition drives costs up instead of down. For example, suppose Hospital A gets a fancy, expensive new MRI machine. Now, Hospital B across town thinks they have to have one too -- so they buy one. Now both sit idle half the time. There are more MRI machines in Louisville, KY, than there are in all of Canada -- and yet I read an article recently (maybe I found it here on DU; I don't remember) that Canadians are healthier than we are.

We are told that it is too expensive to come up with some way to provide universal health care coverage in some form or another. We are also told that other countries have problems with their systems, like long waiting periods for even emergency surgery (on another board I visit, Canadian members firmly say that isn't true; they have no trouble getting the care they need). I just want to know why it is we can fund a war any time, and yet the health care crisis in this country has been festering for years. What is wrong with this picture?

[justinaforjustice]

12. Hawaii Dems Vote for Universal Health Care, Free University Education

If we take half of the military budget (300 billion dollars) and half of the money we are spending on the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions (250 billion dollars) we'll have more than enough to provide every citizen with access to quality health care and free education through the university level, not to mention plenty of affordable housing and free meals at school for all students.

Hawaii Democratic Party met in convention on May 26-28 and voted resolutions and a platform calling for universal, single-payer access to health care as a basic human right. If you are not already a member of the Democratic Party, you might want to join and work to get universal health care passed by your county and state's party. If enough of us to that, we'll have the clout to get it passed by Congress when we take control in November, 2006. Good luck!

[Vinca]

32. Interesting. My brother briefly worked for a large insurer.

His area of expertise is alcoholism and drug issues and he was hired to give the okay for inpatient treatment. Right. That's what they said. It became evident in short order he was hired to reject all requests for such care. It was the best paying job he ever had (go figure), but he just couldn't do it.

[iverglas]

35. just for comparison

Canadian doctors virtually never have to obtain approval from the public insurer for anything.

There are things like salary caps for some specialties, but generally speaking there is the schedule of fees for services, and the doctors provide the services and submit a bill for the fees. No approval needed, no possibility of denial. Ditto for lab tests, xrays, other diagnostic procedures: write the prescription or order, patient takes it along to the lab, lab does the work and submits the bill, and gets paid.

No wonder administration costs are so much lower, eh?

[Psephos]

11. You forgot to add the costs and inefficiencies of govt. bureaucracy

Which are extraordinary, as has been shown time and time again.

I'm not arguing against your position here, just saying any real discussion must acknowledge this elephant in the corner.

Peace.

[Telly Savalas]

13. Government bureaucracy is more efficient that the present bureaucracy.

The per capita administrative costs of U.S. health care are a lot higher than in countries with single-payer systems.

In Canada, dealing with the government bureaucracy means getting your health card swiped when you need medical attention.

[Psephos]

16. I'm not referring to the end-user experience, but the layers above

I also know from a few Canadian friends that when the system doesn't work with a swipe of your card, many turn to alternatives at their own expense.

This issue isn't black and white to me. I do not like the current system (especially given that I am not insured), but I'm also not encouraged by the prospect of the largest government bureaucracy of them all in charge of ten or twelve percent of the national income, and more specifically, my choices. I have nothing but a lifetime bad experiences with bureaucracies.

I find it essentially useless to discuss this with people who think all the chips are on one side or the other. I'm interested in discussion, not recitation. (Not saying you're that way, Telly.)

Peace.

[Bridget Burke]

34. Ooh! I just LOVE anecdotal evidence.

A co-worker took early retirement because she & her husband had some health problems. She had fairly decent insurance, but the expenses kept mounting.

Since she was a Canadian citizen, they moved back North. Mostly for the health coverage. (Although she regretted that, as a non-US citizen, she could not vote against Bush.)

[oscar111]

19. claimed time and time again, but wrong

just RW propoganda, esteemed correspondent.

government does not add on huge profit margins to shoddy goods. No profit incentive is the reason. Just a fair cost for honest service.

Privatized parts of government, time and time again, show up in the headlines as rip-offs charging more and delivering less.

eg., the fly spray truck, privatized, was caught spraying eighty percent water. The gov had been using one hundred percent fly spray, as it should have.

Now, where is that useful "ignore" button? Ah, here it is.

[iverglas]

21. time and time again ...

and yet no citations of even one time, in this particular context?

In fact, two studies have been cited in this thread (one by me) showing the exact opposite: single public payer health insurance systems are VASTLY more cost-efficient than private systems.

The actual elephant in the corner would appear to be this insurance-industry meme. And it's a great big ugly elephant.

[Psephos]

24. Nice try, but I was responding to another post

When I make a factual assertion, I generally provide a link, but I feel no obligation to do other's research when I state my opinion or make a comment. If you don't like my opinion, I'm fine with that - I could post plenty of links, and all I would have for my efforts would be ad hominem attacks (see Oscar above for an example of condescension and sticking one's fingers in one's ears) and self-righteous indignation that I *dare* question The Truth. Clearly I must be an Insurance Industry Stooge(tm) or RW Talking Point Fanboy(tm).

It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into.
-Jonathan Swift

I *do not have* medical insurance; my opinion is valuable. I am attracted to the *idea* of universal coverage, but when I look at the implementation, I'm less than impressed. Apparently it's too much for the true believers in government beneficence and efficiency when I suggest there are shades of gray in this discussion, and that meaningful debate should include the plusses and the minuses of government takeover of medical care.

I also think the current system sucks. Forty million people with no coverage is a disgrace. This must be fixed. Not by ideology but by a practical system based on what's been learned from real-world experience. I don't know the answer but I do know that ideological recitation is not the avenue through which answers are found.

Peace.

[iverglas]

25. and that matters?

I fail to see how. You SAID:

You forgot to add the costs and inefficiencies of govt. bureaucracy
Which are extraordinary, as has been shown time and time again.

That, my friend, is not an "opinion". That is an assertion of fact. (And the confusion on this point hereabouts never ceases to amaze me.) "The costs and inefficiencies of govt. bureaucracy are extraordinary, as has been shown time and time again."

In THIS context, that fact is either:

- irrelevant
or
- false.

The costs and inefficiencies of, say, military procurement are 100% irrelevant to the issue of what the costs of a single public payer health insurance system are as compared to the costs of a private health insurance system, and the relative efficiency of the two systems.

And the truth is that in comparisons of administration costs between the Canadian single public payer health care system and the US private health insurance system, the former has been consistently shown to be enormously more cost-effective than the latter.

While there are numerous factors that mean that the Canadian experience cannot be transposed directly onto the US scene -- such as considerable differences in physicians' incomes -- there is no reason at all to imagine that the Canadian experience in relation to the costs of administering the insurance system could not be replicated in the US pretty closely. In fact, there are facts and expert opinion that support the opinion that it could.

I feel no obligation to do other's research when I state my opinion or make a comment.

When you make an assertion of fact, which is what you did, you also have no obligation to do your own research in order to demonstrate the accuracy or truth of the fact. You just can't really expect anyone to swallow it whole, and you just can't really get all huffy when someone points out that the fact is irrelevant or false.

If you don't like my opinion, I'm fine with that - I could post plenty of links, and all I would have for my efforts would be ad hominem attacks

Well, I guess you have a crystal ball I don't have, or a basis for predicting the response of thousands based on the response of one (and I don't recall whether your characterization of that one is accurate).

Me, I have just never seen the bloody point in anyone coming onto a discussion forum, saying something -- whether it be an assertion of fact or an expression of opinion -- and then responding to contradiction or dissent by saying "like it or lump it". Why not talk to a wall? It wouldn't answer back, and you'd be spared all the aggravation.

Not by ideology but by a practical system based on what's been learned from real-world experience.

Amazingly enough, that's exactly what you were offered, to counter the assertion you made. Might one doubt how interested in real-world experience you really are?

You did kinda hit the nail on the head with Swift:
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."

If you're not prepared to show how you reasoned yourself into what you say, then one has no basis even for thinking you did that. And I have no idea why I'd want to listen to what is said by someone who doesn't even attempt to give reasons for what s/he says.

[Psephos]

26. The difference between you and me

is that your mind is made up, and mine is not.

Even when I explicitly say I don't have the answers, and that I am commenting, not asserting fact, you continue to pretend that *I'm* the ideologue, and that my opinion is a secretly-cloaked fact for which you deserve a list of research sources. If I were to provide some, natch, you'd find ways of dismissing them.

I'm interested in being persuaded one way or the other, but that's hard to do when my would-be persuaders are more interested in pointing out what a jerk I am for not thinking in mechanical lockstep with them.

Unlike you, Iverglas, I have a dog in this fight, because I have no coverage while you do.

Quit wasting my time.

[iverglas]

27. I just scratch my head

How anyone can describe

You forgot to add the costs and inefficiencies of govt. bureaucracy
Which are extraordinary, as has been shown time and time again.

as an opinion is simply beyond me.

I'm interested in being persuaded one way or the other, but that's hard to do when my would-be persuaders are more interested in pointing out what a jerk I am for not thinking in mechanical lockstep with them.

What your would-be persuaders have actually done is offer you FACTS that contradict your assertion. You have had absolutely nothing to say about them, and have not even acknowledged that they were offered or expressed any interest in them. Now, who's not interested in what?

Unlike you, Iverglas, I have a dog in this fight, because I have no coverage while you do.

And yet another indication of failure to know ... stuff.

The very existence of the US health insurance system is the biggest threat there is to the Cdn health insurance system.

I think we can all acknowledge what influence the insurance corporations in the US wield when it comes to the public's decisions about how the health care system will be funded. They wield that influence for the purpose of making money. Lots of it. Big pots of it. For doing something that could be done more cheaply by government. And they do whatever it takes to protect those profits.

Do you imagine that those corporations would not like to be making profits in Canada too? Do you imagine that they don't fund "studies" like those produced by, say, the Fraser Institute, to attempt to influence public opinion and government policy? So that they can move in and take over the delivery of health care in Canada?

I have a very live dog in this race, and I very much don't want it getting sick because US health insurance corporations take over the delivery of health care in my country as they have in yours.

So I and all Canadians are very well advised to dispel falsehoods about the Canadian system, and support all efforts in the US to remodel the health insurance system there in some way that removes the hands of the insurance corporations from the levers that operate the system.

Quit wasting my time.

How's that thing go? Talk to the hand? It won't talk back, I guess is the point.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. Psephos wrote:

Not by ideology but by a practical system based on what's been learned from real-world experience. I don't know the answer but I do know that ideological recitation is not the avenue through which answers are found.

Real world experience indicates that the Canadian system works and costs less than ours.

[reprobate]

40. OK, let's compare gov't vs private enterprise bureaucratic costs.

After a couple of decades in the insurance business, I can tell you how they compare. You can google it for yourself if you wish.

The overhead costs of the industry for health policies can run from 25% to 40% of premium. Depending on the company, size of the group, and other things. Individual policies can be higher (individual family coverage vs group policies).

Compare this to Medicare, which is a gov't run single payer system. Administrative costs of Medicare ar 3%.

That certainly makes your point that gov't bureaucracy cost more than corporate costs.

[pberq]

22. Absolutely. Of course we wouldn't want to cut into those

massive insuarnce company profits now would we? :sarcasm:

[reprobate]

39. Reduce costs AND improve care outcomes.

[Terran1212]

8. But the people don't matter --corporations matter!

[ShockediSay]

10. 1 of every 3 dollars in US goes to admin costs

admin costs = insurance company paper work, pharmaceutical paper work, and the money for their top honchos and lobbyists.

in Canada, which has single payer government administered universal coverage, 1 of every 6 dollars goes to admin costs

ref NPR last week on a report out of Harvard Medical

[iverglas]

17. a link to a study on administration costs

This one's from 2003; I'd like to see the one you refer to, so I'll google around for it later today when I have a minute.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/349/8/768

In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada. Canada's national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent; the overhead among Canada's private insurers was higher than that in the United States (13.2 percent vs. 11.7 percent). Providers' administrative costs were far lower in Canada.

Between 1969 and 1999, the share of the U.S. health care labor force accounted for by administrative workers grew from 18.2 percent to 27.3 percent. In Canada, it grew from 16.0 percent in 1971 to 19.1 percent in 1996. (Both nations' figures exclude insurance-industry personnel.)

Conclusions

The gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration has grown to $752 per capita. A large sum might be saved in the United States if administrative costs could be trimmed by implementing a Canadian-style health care system.

And that's *excluding* insurance industry personnel.

[ShockediSay]

41. best i can do

http://news.google.com/news?as_q=harvard+medical+insurance+canada+administrative&svnum=10&as_scoring=d&hl=en&ned=us&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nsrc=&as_nloc=&as_occt=any&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=w&as_mind=9&as_minm=5&as_maxd=8&as_maxm=6

these are a little more tentative than the speaker i heard on npr (and can't seem to find)

[iverglas]

46. thanks!

That gives the names of the researchers, so one can always google them after a while and see what's been put on line.

There are a few standards by which the U.S. outperforms Canada. The study found Americans less likely to smoke, and more likely to have had cervical pap smears and mammograms.

Heh. Here's me, puffing away, with that referral to the breast screening clinic mouldering away in my purse. (I always get sent back for follow ups on white spots I tend to exhibit in the xrays, and I always get Technician Ratchet, and having somebody squash the flesh all the way up under your arm between those plates really just isn't fun.) And even though I had to have a cervical biopsy some years ago, I gotta admit I haven't been religious about the paps.

I think maybe people with the usual kind of US health insurance -- employer plans with all those specific terms and conditions -- might tend to do that "annual general" thing more than us, to whom health care is just a little more casual. If you know your policy gives you things 1, 2 and 3, you might be a little more aware of when to do them and a little more religious about doing them. Me, if I figure it's time to see a doctor, I just call up my clinic when I get around to it ...

[oscar111]

18. 350 Billion fm rolling back bush's taxcuts for the rich

the total cost today for our health swamppit, is 1. 6 Trillion.

ending private insurers saves .4 Trillion {from Kerry campaign}

caps on the doctors ludicrous incomes would shrink another, equal amount. {this and all following stats on cuts are my own estimates. You might want to google for other, more expert estimates before using these following numbers}

so we are down to .8 Trillion.

the four corners of the health swamp now, are

drs
hosps
Big Pill
insurance co's

Now, control the costs of hospitals and Big Pill, and that cuts .6 Trillion.

total cost savings are 1. 4 Trillion.

Bush's taxcuts, rolled back would easily cover the remaining cost.

24 nations now outlive us.

Contrary to the OP's quote from the RW person, ... the CURRENT system has massive funding - from the peons. Nationalized health would END the need of massive funding by cutting the bloated incomes of those now in healthcare.

[oscar111]

20. HOUSECALLS, England, Germany.

due to nationalized healthcare.

We might also like to end having this happen:

you are in a horrid car wreck.. so you are wheeled into the ER, and the person to stitch up your aorta is a raw beginner, an intern, who has been awake 47 hours. One more hour to work. On you.

good luck.

We not only pay for the current mess with our dollars.. but with our lives. NY got a law limiting the hours-awake mess... and the arrogant ol boys who run the hospitals up there, just ignored the law. Arrogant.

[oscar111]

23. "basic" healthcare? No. "excellent" is needed to repair years neglect

of those with no insurance.

those poor folks need a lot of rehabilitation for the effects of decades with no doctors, or risky treatment at underfunded hosp's for the poor. { i do admire the good docs who are to be found at the hosp's for the poor. There , there is a mix of saints and sloppy ones. The under-funding is the big problem there.}

in short, the campaign should shoot for excellent , not basic.

Sad, that no one ever even expects simple justice in full. That would include paying those folks millions each for years of life crushed down because of untreated health problems. And, for those who perished for lack of care, millions to their survivors.

[The Backlash Cometh]

28. Is Universal Health Care and a liberal immigration policy even

mutually possible?

[iverglas]

29. of course

You remember Canada, right? (Nearly twice as large a proportion of the Cdn population was born outside Canada as the proportion of the US population born outside the US. Our per capita immigration intake is considerably higher than the US -- no conclusions intended, since circumstances in the two countries are quite different; just info.)

Public health insurance coverage is not available to just anyone who wanders across the border. (There's nothing to say it couldn't be made available to anyone -- except the fact that the country would be bankrupt within a day.)

Normally, it is available to legal residents: citizens, permanent residents (green card holders, in the US), and people on student visas and employment visas (technically visitors, in Canada, but included in provincial health plans). All of them are contributing to the public treasury on the same basis: income taxes, and whatever relatively nominal (usually sliding-scale) premium a provincial plan might charge.

People who would put an excessive burden on health services, or who have health conditions that put public health at risk, are not eligible for immigration. (I don't know whether the US immigration system rules out people on excessive burden on health services grounds; one might suspect it would, because anyone might end up on medicare or unable to afford large medical expenses.)

[The Backlash Cometh]

30. Okay, now that we've cleared up immigration, how about a Universal

Health plan and unchecked illegal immigration?

"People who would put an excessive burden on health services, or who have health conditions that put public health at risk, are not eligible for immigration."

By the way, Canada needs to repeal that agreement with the US that will return draft evaders to the US.

[iverglas]

31. alrighty then

I guess that wasn't just an innocent little question after all. Nonetheless, I answered it. And you seem to have more.

Okay, now that we've cleared up immigration, how about a Universal Health plan and unchecked illegal immigration?

I give up; how 'bout it?

Was there something unclear in what I said?

A country (or subdivision of a country) that wants to adopt a single public payer health insurance plan -- what this thread is actually about -- can put whatever limits on access to the plan it wants that are consistent with its constitution (i.e. just like any other legislation).

It is consistent with the Cdn constitution that illegal residents of Canada not be granted access to the plan. Can't speak for the US constitution.

You could come back with "how about a universal health plan and the apocalypse?" and the answer would be the same. They're not related unless the country whose plan it is chooses to relate them.

You quote me: "People who would put an excessive burden on health services, or who have health conditions that put public health at risk, are not eligible for immigration." And I will point out, in case it wasn't clear: entering the country illegally does not make them eligible for coverage under a public health insurance plan.

I'll just bet there's a reason for these questions. Maybe if you shared it, I could address whatever your concerns are better.


By the way, Canada needs to repeal that agreement with the US that will return draft evaders to the US.

Hm. Is there a draft in the US? Might you more effectively say "the US needs to not institute a draft"?

But to get back on our tangent: do you have a citation for that agreement, or could you hum a little of it for me?

I don't know, maybe your government could enter into that kind of agreement and have it stick. Up here, we have a constitution that prohibits the government from doing things that violate people's fundamental rights -- and a population that gets mighty tetchy when the government tries to. We don't even return criminals to the US without an undertaking not to seek the death penalty.

I've heard about this agreement, but I've never seen it, and I can't find hide nor hair of it on the net.

You know who did use to return draft resisters to the US back in the Vietnam days? US law-enforcement types, that's who. Kinda like cattle rustlers, or bounty hunters. They'd just snatch 'em up and take 'em home.

[The Backlash Cometh]

44. No need to get testy.

Your response is very reasonable. Limitations can be defined. 'nuff said.

[iverglas]

47. okay - I can see

I think that this may be a generalized misunderstanding of the Cdn systems -- that you can just wander into Canada and be covered by that "universal" health care thing.

Now, I did find that to be the case in Havana and London. ;) I got great treatment in Havana when I fell down in the street -- tetanus shot, xray, antibiotic prescription, and of course a doctor happy to speak English to a patient. In London my mum landed up at an NHS hospital when she fell down in the street (yeah, it's congenital; but she landed on her head), and we spent 5 hours in the ER without so much as an ice pack for her head while waiting to see a resident -- but when we did she waved our travel insurance documents away because all that billing would have been just too much bother in a system not based on that process.

Of course the reason for our shoddy treatment there was that the UK had become a two-tier system, and the public system had been starved of funds (this was 1994). My friend's partner, who had a private plan, was at the same moment languishing in a private hospital where she could order from the room service menu.

Speaking of dogs in races -- the Harvard study mentioned here is an example of the reverse: USAmerican researchers telling Canadians not to give an inch on our system. Me, I greatly appreciate that, because they know what they're talking about and we need to hear it.

[Bridget Burke]

33. Screen immigrants for health problems & let them in....

As legal residents who do NOT have to knuckle under to unreasonable employers. And who will pay more taxes. (In addition to the Sales Tax & other taxes they are already paying.)

That's the way it was done when my grandparents came over from Ireland.

[proud2BlibKansan]

36. Isn't that health screening part of the current procedure?

[Bridget Burke]

43. Yes, but there's also lots of red tape....

For which most immigrants need to hire immigration lawyers.

Back in "the old days"--decent health was just about all that was required to become legal residents of the USA.

[The Backlash Cometh]

45. It's the illegal immigrants that will be tough to find and encourage

to go get tested.

[Bridget Burke]

48. Especially when their opponents want them CUT OFF ....

From getting any medical "benefits."

In fact, medical care for anyone now in the US--for whatever reason--is a Public Health issue.

[Megahurtz]

38. The AssholesInCharge will only fight against this.

But maybe we can still hope?

[eridani]

42. Yes, and there is a 90 day comment period

PLEASE make use of it! And pass the word around


http://www.citizenshealthcare.gov/speak_out/comment.php