Interesting Amy..its good to hear what goes on inside from someone who actually worked in the industry. Thanks for your insight. BTW - an interesting point was made that those with health insurance actually spend 2-3 times more year than those with no insurance and that debunks the myth that the insured waste more. Could this be primarily from situations like you just mentioned I wonder? sammieswife.
National Healthcare for the USA
"To class warfare"
Robdar..technically you are so right. swife.
You are right - but millions should not be penalized because of one profession. This issue has been addressed in many of the reports and what has been noted is that the number of lawsuits in the USA exceeds that of any other country that has national healthcare. The belief or rationale is that the laws in all of those countries are different regarding this issue and the availability of service itself, reduces and/or eliminates the need for as many law suits. I'm not saying there are never any - but the numbers are extremely minimal by comparison. If I'm not mistaken, Bush has already passed or put in motion, limits on lawsuits from malpractice etc, so that issue will have cleared itself when national health care is implemented. swife.
Irrespective - defensive medicine (perform all the other expensive tests just in case you miss something and aren't sued for millions upon millions) is the rule of the day. Defensive medicine is not free and someone has to pay for it. Who pays for it? America pays for it in aggregate as you can see by the rising costs of Healthcare for all. The doctor/labs/hospital/radiologists etc all charge for the extra procedures and the additional documentation required BY LAW to show no malpractice has occurred. These costs are then "covered" by insurers (for those insured) and the patient/patient family. All because we have an unlimited upside in lawsuits and we are in need of tort reform. Other countries make fun of the US because it is so sue happy and the lawsuits are out of control - thats the root cause of the spiraling costs. But guess what lawyers run Washington....do you really think they are going to do anything or allow anything that will rock their gravy boat? Do you think with national healthcare we would still have the lawsuits up the wazoo? Who would pay for that? The other alternative has the legal profession lobbying against your national healthcare too - together with the other lobbies this is a powerful force and the corruption in Washington will always win.
The doctor/labs/hospital/radiologists etc all charge for the extra procedures and the additional documentation required BY LAW to show no malpractice has occurred.
Donkey can you be specific regarding this allegation. There is standard of care, each and every doctor is required to meet w/i their industry that has NOTHING (let me say again NOTHING) to do with law. There is something also called the gold standard which means that it is not standard but above and beyond the standard w/i the industry. Each state is different, but for example in the State of IL you are required to have a 2-622 report filed either w/ your compliant or w/i 60 days of filing your complaint otherwise the lawsuit will be dismissed by the court. The report is an affidavit by a physician that practices w/i the same field that states that the doctor accused of the med mal has deviated from the standard of care. And before you say that anyone can buy that, you cannot and all the doctors I work w/ review the documents first and then either tell us yes or no as to whether there was a deviation as to the standard of care.
Listen we play both sides of the fence at my firm. We do both defense of ER docs and we sue docs. We are very particular in the cases we pursue as a plaintiff. But some of the frightening things I have seen both over worked doctors and under staffed hospitals get away with, you too would want to some how change the system. Treaters now have to reach a certain percentage to meet their overhead and to make a profit. That is why the doctor's office seems busier then before. That is why there is a min. of 4 hours wait time in the ER before you are seen (if it is not life threatening).
I do agree that Americans are very sue happy. The judicial system has lost its threat anymore, even with the average man. That being the case anyone who feels they have been wronged feels they should be able to bring a lawsuit and they do. It just clogs up the legal system and things that should take no more than 2 years to get to trial now take anywhere from 5 to 7, depending on the court you are in. But if we did not have these checks and balances, I truly believe that treaters would be out of control and insurance companies would still be charging us what they do.
As I said the current health system is not working for us, we need to figure out something else and give that a try.
And as for someone who mentioned Planned Parenthood. Yes, they are a great resource for women, depending on the state you are in. Some states regulate what PP can do and give out. Also, because of the die hard religious groups in some states, some women and girls are afraid to use PP because of the harassment they may encounter going into the building or if they are seen by their neighbors using the facilities they and their families have been threatened. I volunteer for PP, they are great group. My suggestion for someone who thinks they are a great resource in every state, get their news letter and weekly updates, it will tell you what southern states are fighting to limit the rights of contraception for teenage girls and women.
I'm perplexed. The US Government is entrusted with executing it's own citizens, but you don't trust them to administrate healthcare?
<Runs for cover>
Bush Administration tax cut denies military families increase in child tax credit. The families of 262,000 children of military personnel do not receive the child tax credit increase because the plan fails to cover taxpaying families with incomes between $10,500 and $26,625. According to The Washington Post, the House version of the Bush Administration plan "wouldn't help many of those serving in Iraq." One solider who will not benefit is Army Specialist Shoshana Johnson, the soldier and single mother who was wounded twice in the same convoy as Jessica Lynch. ("Ex-POW's Family Accuses Army of Double Standard on Benefit," Washington Post, October 24, 2003; "The New Senate Child Credit Legislation - What It Does and Does Not Do," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, June 25, 2003; "Whose Child Is Left Behind," Children's Defense Fund, July 23, 2003)
Bush Administration opposed plan to give National Guard and Reserve Members access to health insurance. Despite the war efforts of America's National Guard and Reserve Members, the Bush Administration announced in October 2003 its formal opposition to give the 1.2 million Guard and Reserve members the right to buy health care coverage through the Pentagon's health plan. One out of every five Guard members lacks health insurance. ("Bush Opposes Health Plan for National Guard," Gannett News Service, October 23, 2003)
Enjoy National Healthcare, and enjoy the skyrocketing unemployment rate, and enjoy the rampant government waste.
Hmmm. That would be a slippery slope fallacy. Seen plenty of them while in the JWs, and continue to see plenty of them now...
Believe it or not, the NHS didn't cause overwhelming unemployment, rather it became the biggest employer in the whole of Europe...
America is the only country in the industrialized world which does not provide some form of national health care.
Canada, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, France, Italy, Spain, Norway, Netherlands, Germany, Greece, Luxemburg, Belgium, Finland, United Kingdom, Denmark, Australia, and New Zealand all provide national health care for their citizens. Some of these countries also have privatized health care plans for the wealthy minorities. Singapore has parallel national health care and privatized health care systems. America is unique in not providing national health care for its citizens. Article 25 of the 1948 U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” It also states, “Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock shall enjoy the same social protection.” In the United States, access to health care is a privilege. In the rest of the world, it is a birth right.
Does anyone know of a list of politicians that are for NHC in the U.S. ?