So, a patient just called me...

Gern Blansten

we should meet in Chicago and have a beer or 12

_

jlew24asu wrote:

scb wrote:

Use better sources and you won't have that problem.

no sources that show UHC in a bad light will be acceptable to the likes of you. thats the point.

Actually, that's not true. But objectivity and honesty is important for any source.

_

jlew24asu wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

you realize the thread topic right?

maybe you can tell me. because I didn't know it had anything to do with stem cell research and treatment.

I can tell you, since I started the thread. (See, in this case I'm an example of a valid source. )

The thread was to point out that the current system does not provide the multitude of options people claim it does.

jlew24asu

scb wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

scb wrote:

Use better sources and you won't have that problem.

no sources that show UHC in a bad light will be acceptable to the likes of you. thats the point.

Actually, that's not true. But objectivity and honesty is important for any source.

but any source that mentions potential problems with UHC is going to be some sort of "conservative" outlet.

plus, what is wrong with the stories told on that site? its coming directly from the people involved. why are they not telling the whole story in your opinion? what is being left out?

Gern Blansten

so I was on topic

apology accepted jlew

jlew24asu

scb wrote:

I can tell you, since I started the thread. (See, in this case I'm an example of a valid source. )

The thread was to point out that the current system does not provide the multitude of options people claim it does.

really? cuz it would seem to be that you tried to show the current system does not provide the multitude of doctor options. I fail to see where you are mentioning we need stem cell treatments.

Gern Blansten

:roll:

jlew24asu

Gern Blansten wrote:

:roll:

are you are in your 40s? I would guess teens

soulsinging

jlew24asu wrote:

but any source that mentions potential problems with UHC is going to be some sort of "conservative" outlet.

plus, what is wrong with the stories told on that site? its coming directly from the people involved. why are they not telling the whole story in your opinion? what is being left out?

Because the people involved have said their stories are being misrepresented. That they generally like Canada's UHC but acknowledge it has problems that need to be addressed. Yet the stories are being used here as a sign of inevitable disaster if we switch to UHC, as if the things described in the video don't happen here already (which this OP makes clear it does, daily). I mean, if you're going to ride Glen about being misleading, you can't be honestly telling me these sources of yours aren't being equally misleading in the way they present these stories. They're attempting to make it look like a nightmare that would be infinitely worse than what we have. When the facts show even the people telling the stories appreciate the UHC system and none of the problems they describe are unique to UHC, they're already problems we have here.

There was a poster around here back in the day that I believe had to fly to Australia to get cancer treatments that were basically 100% effective. If the private thing works so well, why are many Americans going to countries with socialized health care to avoid waitlists here and get treatments they can't get here at all? I thought our private system would inevitably produce the finest health care in the world with the best equipment and procedures via the glories of competition?

_

jlew24asu wrote:

but any source that mentions potential problems with UHC is going to be some sort of "conservative" outlet.

plus, what is wrong with the stories told on that site? its coming directly from the people involved. why are they not telling the whole story in your opinion? what is being left out?

If there really is a valid case against universal health care, there has got to be an objective source for it out there somewhere.

Didn't someone post that there have been people quoted on that website who specifically said their whole story wasn't told?

Gern Blansten

I think it's amazing that foreigners have to get health insurance to travel to the USA....god forbid they get injured when they are here and get a $60,000 hospital bill.

I had a friend who traveled to Austria....husband had a heart attack while they were there and she was blown away by the fact that they went right to the hospital, got treatment, didn't spend a dime.

jlew24asu

soulsinging wrote:

Because the people involved have said their stories are being misrepresented. That they generally like Canada's UHC but acknowledge it has problems that need to be addressed. Yet the stories are being used here as a sign of inevitable disaster if we switch to UHC, as if the things described in the video don't happen here already (which this OP makes clear it does, daily). I mean, if you're going to ride Glen about being misleading, you can't be honestly telling me these sources of yours aren't being equally misleading in the way they present these stories. They're attempting to make it look like a nightmare that would be infinitely worse than what we have. When the facts show even the people telling the stories appreciate the UHC system and none of the problems they describe are unique to UHC, they're already problems we have here.

that site is bias, yes. but its not misleading. it shows the potentials problems with UHC, lower quality of care. something that people like you will deny to no end, even though its a very valid concern.

soulsinging wrote:

There was a poster around here back in the day that I believe had to fly to Australia to get cancer treatments that were basically 100% effective. If the private thing works so well, why are many Americans going to countries with socialized health care to avoid waitlists here and get try treatments they can't get here at all? I thought our private system would inevitably produce the finest health care in the world with the best equipment and procedures via the glories of competition?

oh yea? like what?

so far I've heard of Farrah Fawcett going to Germany to Ozone treatment and someone else going for stem cell treatment. which wouldnt exist under UHC anyway.

are you really saying people dont come to the US for specialized treatment they can't get in other countries?

jlew24asu

Gern Blansten wrote:

I think it's amazing that foreigners have to get health insurance to travel to the USA....god forbid they get injured when they are here and get a $60,000 hospital bill.

I had a friend who traveled to Austria....husband had a heart attack while they were there and she was blown away by the fact that they went right to the hospital, got treatment, didn't spend a dime.

your friend didnt spend a dime, no. the people of Austria paid his $60,000 bill.

Gern Blansten

jlew24asu wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

I think it's amazing that foreigners have to get health insurance to travel to the USA....god forbid they get injured when they are here and get a $60,000 hospital bill.

I had a friend who traveled to Austria....husband had a heart attack while they were there and she was blown away by the fact that they went right to the hospital, got treatment, didn't spend a dime.

your friend didnt spend a dime, no. the people of Austria paid his $60,000 bill.

correct....and no insurance company profited

jlew24asu

Gern Blansten wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

I think it's amazing that foreigners have to get health insurance to travel to the USA....god forbid they get injured when they are here and get a $60,000 hospital bill.

I had a friend who traveled to Austria....husband had a heart attack while they were there and she was blown away by the fact that they went right to the hospital, got treatment, didn't spend a dime.

your friend didnt spend a dime, no. the people of Austria paid his $60,000 bill.

correct....and no insurance company profited

um, when insurance companies pay out $60,000 hospital bills, they dont profit either. they would have taken a huge loss on someone who came here, bought some coverage, and had a $60,000 bill.

and the taxpayer wouldn't have lost a dime.

Gern Blansten

jlew24asu wrote:

um, when insurance companies pay out $60,000 hospital bills, they dont profit either. they would have taken a huge loss on someone who came here, bought some coverage, and had a $60,000 bill.

and the taxpayer wouldn't have lost a dime.

actually no....the premium would be based on

1. number of policies they issue to foreigners
2. risk factor

If that one policy was the only foreign visitor policy they sold then you would be correct but obviously only certain insurance companies issue those policies

jlew24asu

Gern Blansten wrote:

actually no....the premium would be based on

1. number of policies they issue to foreigners
2. risk factor

If that one policy was the only foreign visitor policy they sold then you would be correct but obviously only certain insurance companies issue those policies

they would have taken a HUGE loss had that one visitor had a $60,000 bill.

Gern Blansten

jlew24asu wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

actually no....the premium would be based on

1. number of policies they issue to foreigners
2. risk factor

If that one policy was the only foreign visitor policy they sold then you would be correct but obviously only certain insurance companies issue those policies

they would have taken a HUGE loss had that one visitor had a $60,000 bill.

depends on how many policies issued right?

they take a loss on car insurance if paid outs are greater than paid ins....we can't argue without facts man

soulsinging

jlew24asu wrote:

that site is bias, yes. but its not misleading. it shows the potentials problems with UHC, lower quality of care. something that people like you will deny to no end, even though its a very valid concern.

oh yea? like what?

so far I've heard of Farrah Fawcett going to Germany to Ozone treatment and someone else going for stem cell treatment. which wouldnt exist under UHC anyway.

are you really saying people dont come to the US for specialized treatment they can't get in other countries?

That's the point you're missing. It IS misleading, not because it shows that there are problems with UHC, but this "lower quality of care" fiction you've invented. The people in those videos weren't saying UHC is bad and our system is better, and the OP here is one of many stories showing that the same problems in their stories occur here under our system every day. These stories don't do anything to prove that the quality of care is less under UHC, which is why they are misleading.

I'm not going to tell someone else's story because it's not really my place to reveal someone else's struggles on here, but there was a poster here that I met who was a great guy and had to go overseas to get his cancer treated because for whatever reason it couldn't be done here. And yes, people come here for treatments as well. This is our point, the one you refuse to admit... our system currently is no better than anyone else's. You act like any switch to UHC will cause an inevitable drop in care quality, yet for every person coming here, we have plenty of people going elsewhere. The US has no lock on great health care, in most areas we are far behind our peers. That is alarming and shameful. Nobody here has ever claimed UHC would be problem-free (as you like to pretend we do), we've just all said our system is a mess and we'd trade our problems for theirs in a heartbeat. And that's why your videos are misleading, because the people in those videos wouldn't trade the problems they have for our problems for anything.

jlew24asu

soulsinging wrote:

That's the point you're missing. It IS misleading, not because it shows that there are problems with UHC, but this "lower quality of care" fiction you've invented.

its not fiction, and I certainly didnt invent it.. its a absolute possibility that can be created with government cost controls and funding cuts.

soulsinging wrote:

The people in those videos weren't saying UHC is bad and our system is better, and the OP here is one of many stories showing that the same problems in their stories occur here under our system every day. These stories don't do anything to prove that the quality of care is less under UHC, which is why they are misleading.

I'm not saying our current system is perfect and the problem posted by the OP is certainly something that needs to be addressed. I'd rather it be addressed by government regulation/policing instead of UHC.

soulsinging wrote:

I'm not going to tell someone else's story because it's not really my place to reveal someone else's struggles on here, but there was a poster here that I met who was a great guy and had to go overseas to get his cancer treated because for whatever reason it couldn't be done here. And yes, people come here for treatments as well. This is our point, the one you refuse to admit... our system currently is no better than anyone else's. You act like any switch to UHC will cause an inevitable drop in care quality, yet for every person coming here, we have plenty of people going elsewhere.

not all systems are created equal. UHC would be many times larger then any of the countries mentioned. there is plenty of more room for UHC to provide lower quality care in America then it is elsewhere. and thats based on teh fact that it costs much more money to maintain a high quality public system for a country of this size.

soulsinging wrote:

The US has no lock on great health care, in most areas we are far behind our peers. That is alarming and shameful.

like what?

soulsinging wrote:

Nobody here has ever claimed UHC would be problem-free (as you like to pretend we do), we've just all said our system is a mess and we'd trade our problems for theirs in a heartbeat. And that's why your videos are misleading, because the people in those videos wouldn't trade the problems they have for our problems for anything.

how the fuck do you know what they would trade?

many of those stories are begging America NOT to go to UHC because of the problems they encountered.

Gern Blansten

agreed....no system is perfect but UHC simply has to be better than this

we know this because other countries are doing it and are doing very well and are ranked much higher than us for health care services

The health care lobby is strong and they are throwing all kinds of stories out there to scare people about UHC

For me it comes down to this....quality care cannot be provided when profit is the motive....and a country as advanced as ours is pathetic for not taking care of our own while we spend billions blowing up people in other countries

jlew24asu

Gern Blansten wrote:

agreed....no system is perfect but UHC simply has to be better than this

but what if its not. then what?

Gern Blansten wrote:

we know this because other countries are doing it and are doing very well and are ranked much higher than us for health care services

global rankings haven't been done in almost a decade. and like I said, not all UHC systems are created equal.

Gern Blansten wrote:

The health care lobby is strong and they are throwing all kinds of stories out there to scare people about UHC

For me it comes down to this....quality care cannot be provided when profit is the motive....and a country as advanced as ours is pathetic for not taking care of our own while we spend billions blowing up people in other countries

we do provide top quality care. we have some of the best specialized systems in the world. that is not disputed. and quality care can and does happen when profit is the motive. where quality starts to come into question is when healthcare is based on limited budgets, price controls, and cut in funding.

cincybearcat

scb wrote:

asking if she could be seen by one of our docs. She has the list of the docs her health insurance will allow her to see and she's just going down the list calling every one. She's was on the L's by the time she got to me. I had to turn her away too.

Gotta love that "choice" provided to us by the private insurance companies!

So she was provided with a list of dr's but you turned her away because you "aren't excepting new patients", right?

So, me thinks both sides are a bit silly, no?

_

soulsinging wrote:

That's the point you're missing. It IS misleading, not because it shows that there are problems with UHC, but this "lower quality of care" fiction you've invented. The people in those videos weren't saying UHC is bad and our system is better, and the OP here is one of many stories showing that the same problems in their stories occur here under our system every day. These stories don't do anything to prove that the quality of care is less under UHC, which is why they are misleading.

I'm not going to tell someone else's story because it's not really my place to reveal someone else's struggles on here, but there was a poster here that I met who was a great guy and had to go overseas to get his cancer treated because for whatever reason it couldn't be done here. And yes, people come here for treatments as well. This is our point, the one you refuse to admit... our system currently is no better than anyone else's. You act like any switch to UHC will cause an inevitable drop in care quality, yet for every person coming here, we have plenty of people going elsewhere. The US has no lock on great health care, in most areas we are far behind our peers. That is alarming and shameful. Nobody here has ever claimed UHC would be problem-free (as you like to pretend we do), we've just all said our system is a mess and we'd trade our problems for theirs in a heartbeat. And that's why your videos are misleading, because the people in those videos wouldn't trade the problems they have for our problems for anything.

I think what he's not getting is that some statements are absolute and others are relative. When I said, "This problem exists in this system," that (as I'm sure you're well aware) is not a relative statement. Same as when he says, "This problem exists within UHC systems."

But to say one system is better or worse is relative. When a person or website identify a problem that exists within UHC, they can't then extrapolate from that that UHC is WORSE than our current system in the U.S. without then COMPARING it to the U.S. system.

_

cincybearcat wrote:

scb wrote:

asking if she could be seen by one of our docs. She has the list of the docs her health insurance will allow her to see and she's just going down the list calling every one. She's was on the L's by the time she got to me. I had to turn her away too.

Gotta love that "choice" provided to us by the private insurance companies!

So she was provided with a list of dr's but you turned her away because you "aren't excepting new patients", right?

So, me thinks both sides are a bit silly, no?

Well, the doc she asked me about only sees pregnant women and this patient isn't pregnant.

As for the other docs in our practice, many aren't accepting new patients because their "panels" are full, meaning they just can't possibly find the time to see anyone else. There's already a 3-month wait for their established patients to be seen by them.

We do have docs who are accepting new patients, but many of them are likely not covered by her insurance. I hope she found one who was as she went down her list. I don't schedule for those docs, so I couldn't help her there.

polaris_x

jlew24asu wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

so if someone has a bad experience with UHC, its just a spun up story?

no ... the point is they aren't telling the whole story ... they interviewed the person in the ad i saw and she said that she doesn't dislike our health care system - just that it has flaws ...

yes it does. so does our current system. and I guess it comes down to which is less worse eh? and what most of those stories from that site show is that UHC will bring down the quality of care over the long run with cost cuts and controls.

that is not true ... each system definitely has it's flaws ... but let's look at it this way ...

you guys in the states pay way more towards health care then us ... yet, what is the access level? ... sure, for specialty surgery (such as the ones patients united picks out) - the wait times are long ... but if you get cancer here - you will get treated and you won't have to mortgage everything ... if i break a leg or any other more common illnesses - i will get treated ...

_

polaris_x wrote:

you guys in the states pay way more towards health care then us ... yet, what is the access level? ...

That's an EXCELLENT point that has gone unrecognized by anti-UHC people here.

jlew24asu

scb wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

you guys in the states pay way more towards health care then us ... yet, what is the access level? ...

That's an EXCELLENT point that has gone unrecognized by anti-UHC people here.

its not going unrecognized. the access level may or may not be better under UHC. and even if its better, the quality can be lower.

whats going unrecognized is the fact that we don't need a UHC system to make things better.

polaris_x

jlew24asu wrote:

scb wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

you guys in the states pay way more towards health care then us ... yet, what is the access level? ...

That's an EXCELLENT point that has gone unrecognized by anti-UHC people here.

its not going unrecognized. the access level may or may not be better under UHC. and even if its better, the quality can be lower.

whats going unrecognized is the fact that we don't need a UHC system to make things better.

it's definitely better under a so-called UHC model ... it's only for exceptions like the surgery that requires special equipment and stuff where people have to go elsewhere ...

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content ... Healt.aspx

Among the six nations studied—Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in the 2006 and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last on dimensions of access, patient safety, efficiency, and equity.

jlew24asu

polaris_x wrote:

it's definitely better under a so-called UHC model ... it's only for exceptions like the surgery that requires special equipment and stuff where people have to go elsewhere ...

thats a really big exception wouldn't ya say?

polaris_x wrote:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content ... Healt.aspx

Among the six nations studied—Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in the 2006 and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last on dimensions of access, patient safety, efficiency, and equity.

this is an interesting report, thanks for posting.

in regards to access, its only bad for those who have no insurance. which should go as no surprise right? but....

"insured patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services. In other countries, like the U.K and Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience long wait times for such specialized services"


so you tell me, who has better access ?


I'm all for the current system being improved. I've never said otherwise but if you want to talk about access, you should tell the whole story.