I Want to Hit Something

[Hobbit]

Today, for somewhere around the 16th time, I told somebody who favored us using the UK or Canadian system of health care that I would have died under that system from an easily treatable ailment. I described in detail how the cancer that grew in my face was misdiagnosed as benign (over 99% of growths where it was are benign), but due to our top rate health care system, I was operated on within a month, and could have made it in the OR in a week if I didn't want to delay until the end of the school year. I told them how, if it had not been removed when it was, the tumor would have spend months, or even years eating away at my liver while doctors prolonged my excruciating life with chemotherapy until I finally wasted away on a hospital bed before reaching drinking age, but that the fact that it got removed when it was means that today, I live a perfectly normal life with minimum side effects and never had to go through that personal hell known as chemotherapy. Under a socialized system, a benign growth like that would have sat there for months, maybe years, until it was too late to do anything but watch me die, and that thought scares the hell out of me.

Once before, when saying this, somebody decided to give his position on the issue serious thought, wondering if horrors like this were worth giving those who couldn't be bothered to get basic health insurance unlimited doctor visits. Four times, I've had somebody naively tell me that things like waiting lists and rationing won't happen here because we'll 'do it right.' However, for about the 11th time today (note, the majority of people I've told this to), somebody told me that my slow and excruciating death at a young age would be an acceptable price to pay if it meant that we had socialized medicine implemented in this country. So far, I haven't hit anybody yet, but if I hear it one more time, I may put a shiner on the asshole. Hell, I may have done it today if he'd added the condescending addendum most people put on it that the only reason I'm alive is because my 'rich' parents (they were middle class and climbing out of a huge debt hole when this happened) gave me access to the 'good' health care in this country (I was diagnosed at the family clinic in town and the surgery was done in a nearby hospital that was built by a charity foundation).

[manu1959]

hit em next time....tell em to come see me.....

[diuretic]

What's the problem H?

You led with your chin mate. You hypothesised about something and that's an invite to an argument. You made a claim that you couldn't possibly prove, small wonder you got a spray.

Under a socialized system, a benign growth like that would have sat there for months, maybe years, until it was too late to do anything but watch me die, and that thought scares the hell out of me.

No it wouldn't. You would have been given priority surgery.

Now I can't prove that. But you can't prove your claim that it would have sat there for months in the UK or Canadian system. I'm pretty sure you'd be on even shakier ground if you'd referred to France or even the system in my country.

But, whoever said this:

somebody told me that my slow and excruciating death at a young age would be an acceptable price to pay if it meant that we had socialized medicine implemented in this country

doesn't know shit from shinola. Your slow and excruciating death at a young age would have nothing to do with universal health care or socialised medicine. You should have told them that human sacrifice went out with the Aztecs.

[Hobbit]

No it wouldn't. You would have been given priority surgery.

Bullshit! The growth was diagnosed as a benign cyst that could have safely sat there for years with no problems. I read stories every day about wait times of 6 months to 2 years for people with cancer or rotting teeth in Canada or the UK. Hell, there's a girl in Canada right now with a brain tumor who's been out of school for months because of blackouts and seizures, just waiting for an MRI. The idea that something thought to be completely harmless would have gotten me on the short list is fallacious and, at best, naive.

However, I do appreciate that you are actually engaging in an intelligent discussion rather than just telling me that my death would be an acceptable sacrifice. What pissed me off isn't that somebody disagreed with me. What pissed me off is that somebody would actually tell me to my face that they would rather I have died horribly than see a country without socialized medicine.

[JohnDoe]

Bullshit! The growth was diagnosed as a benign cyst that could have safely sat there for years with no problems. I read stories every day about wait times of 6 months to 2 years for people with cancer or rotting teeth in Canada or the UK. Hell, there's a girl in Canada right now with a brain tumor who's been out of school for months because of blackouts and seizures, just waiting for an MRI. The idea that something thought to be completely harmless would have gotten me on the short list is fallacious and, at best, naive.

However, I do appreciate that you are actually engaging in an intelligent discussion rather than just telling me that my death would be an acceptable sacrifice. What pissed me off isn't that somebody disagreed with me. What pissed me off is that somebody would actually tell me to my face that they would rather I have died horribly than see a country without socialized medicine.Would you have gotten this surgery in a month if you DID NOT HAVE insurance in the USA? I am uncertain of this?

Btw hobbit, i am greatful and glad you are okay and they removed it in time.

jd

[avatar4321]

if you do hit someone tell them to be grateful they wont have to sit on a waiting list to be seen now.

[gabosaurus]

I totally agree with Hobbit. Especially knowing someone who lives in England, where non-emergency care has to be scheduled months in advance.
I think this quote describes it best. Perhaps someone else can attribute it:

"If you think health care costs a lot now, wait until it becomes free"

[Hobbit]

I totally agree with Hobbit. Especially knowing someone who lives in England, where non-emergency care has to be scheduled months in advance.
I think this quote describes it best. Perhaps someone else can attribute it:

"If you think health care costs a lot now, wait until it becomes free"

*blink blink*

I'll be honest. When I saw that you had the latest post, I fully expected a pro socialized health care post, especially considering your support for candidates who have socialized medicine as part of their platform. Way to buck the party line and think for yourself. Rep for you!

Edit: gotta spread it around


Would you have gotten this surgery in a month if you DID NOT HAVE insurance in the USA? I am uncertain of this?

Yes, but I basically would have had to take out a loan to pay for it. If I was totally unable to pay, I could have gotten a simple, cheap biopsy to find out how dangerous it was and how urgently it needed to be removed. Since it was life-threatening, I probably could have found a pro-bono surgeon and had my other fees paid through a charity. I've actually raised money for charities like this before, even before I had cancer.

[gabosaurus]

Health insurance is the biggest racket in the U.S. The profit margins are incredible. As is the squeezing of physicians and companies.
My husband is fortunate to have full coverage. My sister does not. Her coverage does not include anything classified as "psychiatric care." Her most recent illness left her in a deep depression. My husband and I had to shell out huge bucks to pay for a therapist, since there is no way my sister or her husband could have handled it.

One of my best friends had a miscarriage. She had severe abdominal bleeding. The doctors wanted to use a series of procedures and take things slowly. The insurance company tried to challenge pretty much all of the doctor's decisions, looking to cut costs. After she got out, the insurance company wanted to cancel her policy, saying she had "abused it." The company she worked for had to threaten to sue them.

I don't believe in the "free health care" scam. It's a nightmare. But the health care industry needs to be regulated.
It won't happen because the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies are the two strongest in Washington.

[KitchenKitten99]

*blink blink*

I'll be honest. When I saw that you had the latest post, I fully expected a pro socialized health care post, especially considering your support for candidates who have socialized medicine as part of their platform. Way to buck the party line and think for yourself. Rep for you!

Edit: gotta spread it around


I repped Gabby for you. :salute:

[Hobbit]

I don't believe in the "free health care" scam. It's a nightmare. But the health care industry needs to be regulated.
It won't happen because the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies are the two strongest in Washington.

I'd prefer less regulation. First off, either remove the business deduction for providing employees health care or give the same deduction to people who buy their own. If people start having more control over who they go to for health insurance, the insurance companies would be forced to shape up to attract business. As it is right now, individual buyers are small beans compared to corporate contracts, and corporate contracts have all kinds of unnecessary stuff added to them, and all that stuff has to be paid for, and it typically comes from the payroll account. I have my own insurance policy, and it doesn't cover trivial things that insurance shouldn't cover (regular check ups, for example). Insurance should only pay for unforeseeable expenses, and no, pregnancy shouldn't count. You get 9 months to prep for that.

I really think that if those things started happening, costs would go down, as consumers would actually know what health care is costing them.

Also, I think the state governments need to butt out. In Pennsylvania, you are forbidden by law from buying an insurance policy that doesn't cover acupuncture and aromatherapy (which are both pretty much scams) and in New Jersey, you can just wait until you get sick, go in for an insurance policy, and they are required by law to cover you.

[gabosaurus]

Hobbit, while I agree with you on some points, on others you are way off base.
Why shouldn't insurance cover pregnancy? Are you aware of how hideously expensive having a child is? It is nine months of pre-natal care, then delivering the child. If there are complications, the average couple would be way over their heads. It is akin to being treated for a medical condition for nine months, then having surgery.

Like I said, health insurance is big business. The big companies try to put health care out of the range of individuals. Even small businesses can rarely afford the costs of offering health care.
That is why health care needs to be regulated. To give individuals and small businesses the same rights to reasonable health care as large businesses.

Look how many people are not eligible for health care -- anyone who is unemployed or working part time, those who are self-employed, those who work for companies too small to offer health care, and those who work places that don't offer it.
That is a freakin ton of people! What happens to them in case of an emergency? Are they just left to die?

[Hobbit]

Hobbit, while I agree with you on some points, on others you are way off base.
Why shouldn't insurance cover pregnancy? Are you aware of how hideously expensive having a child is? It is nine months of pre-natal care, then delivering the child. If there are complications, the average couple would be way over their heads. It is akin to being treated for a medical condition for nine months, then having surgery.

Complications are unforeseen expenses. Those should be covered by insurance. Intentional pregnancy (meaning a pregnancy if you're not using some sort of birth control) is something easily planned for. Plus, I think if it stops being something insurance covers, it will get cheaper, because people will realize they're being ripped off and doctors will have to compete for their business.


Like I said, health insurance is big business. The big companies try to put health care out of the range of individuals. Even small businesses can rarely afford the costs of offering health care.
That is why health care needs to be regulated. To give individuals and small businesses the same rights to reasonable health care as large businesses

That's what I'm talking about with the tax deduction. Right now, big businesses get a tax deduction for offering health care, so almost all do it. Small businesses and individuals don't get that same tax deduction. Because of this, way too many people think it's the job of their employer to provide health care. If businesses stopped getting the tax deduction, or if individuals got the tax deduction, or if businesses gave their employees more options (you have x dollars to shop for an insurance policy. If you go under, the difference is added to your pay), insurance companies would actually have to compete for their business and you'd see rates tank. Also, regulation is part of what's driving up the cost of insurance. Like I said, many states require things to be covered by insurance that shouldn't be and in New Jersey, you can't ever be refused health insurance, so most people wait until they're sick to get it, causing premiums to break 4 digits.


Look how many people are not eligible for health care -- anyone who is unemployed or working part time, those who are self-employed, those who work for companies too small to offer health care, and those who work places that don't offer it.

This statement is born from the attitude that it's your employer's job to give you health insurance. I refused my employer's health plan and purchased my own for much less. It's high deductible ($2000), so it really only covers disasters, which is ok for me, because I'm too young to have any of the complications that more comprehensive plans cover. The problem is that they get a tax deduction for doing that, while I don't. Anybody can buy their own policy, and if more people shopped around for what suited them rather than passing the responsibility on to their employers (which might happen more often if individuals got the tax break), the rates would start going down due to market pressure.


That is a freakin ton of people! What happens to them in case of an emergency? Are they just left to die?

You can't be turned down for emergency care. That's the law. I think it should be modified, as it has no way to offer compensation for those who don't pay and doesn't adequately define emergency care, but it's still a law that makes sure nobody's going to just get dumped out of the back of an emergency room untreated because they can't pay.

[diuretic]

Bullshit! The growth was diagnosed as a benign cyst that could have safely sat there for years with no problems. I read stories every day about wait times of 6 months to 2 years for people with cancer or rotting teeth in Canada or the UK. Hell, there's a girl in Canada right now with a brain tumor who's been out of school for months because of blackouts and seizures, just waiting for an MRI. The idea that something thought to be completely harmless would have gotten me on the short list is fallacious and, at best, naive.

However, I do appreciate that you are actually engaging in an intelligent discussion rather than just telling me that my death would be an acceptable sacrifice. What pissed me off isn't that somebody disagreed with me. What pissed me off is that somebody would actually tell me to my face that they would rather I have died horribly than see a country without socialized medicine.

Well to address your last point first - that's an attitude I fail to understand. It's also bloody offensive. I think I might have felt like smacking that prick in the chops.

But my point about hypothesising remains and yes, it's meant to be entirely without any personal references. Look, I know I'm biased. A few years ago I had a mild heart attack (it was but it still made me almost crap my pants) and I received immediate care and underwent an angioplasty (ironically enough the surgeon who carried out the procedure had just returned from several years study and practice in New York City, now the youngest full professor in cardiac surgery we've ever had). I had it done in a timely manner and it didn't cost me one cent. Now I do have private health insurance but it didn't kick in because the treatment I had was on the public dollar.

Anyway, good to keep personalities out of it and just focus on the arguments.

[diuretic]

I totally agree with Hobbit. Especially knowing someone who lives in England, where non-emergency care has to be scheduled months in advance.
I think this quote describes it best. Perhaps someone else can attribute it:

"If you think health care costs a lot now, wait until it becomes free"

gab that could be the case (I'm not doubting your word or that of your friend, merely staking out my position) because in the UK things generally have deteriorated - not just in the NHS - since the legendary Nye Bevan created the NHS (it wasn't ground-breaking, I think similar schemes were instituted in Germany under Bismarck but I could well be wrong on that).

Government, indeed public life, in the UK has deteriorated. I have family and friends there and it seems that the UK has left behind the principles that served it pretty well from the end of WWII when the country was free but shatttered until the 1980s when Thatcher took over and absolutely pissed over British values in favour of her idea of a collection of individuals.

Because the UK has lost its way from Thatcher onwards (Tony Blair wasn't a Labour politician, he was Thatcher Lite) and has failed to properly fund the NHS doesn't invalidate the idea of a universal health scheme. Apparently France (never needed health care on the couple of occasions I've been in France thankfully) has a good system, perhaps, unlike the UK, they actually fund it properly.

[Hobbit]

gab that could be the case (I'm not doubting your word or that of your friend, merely staking out my position) because in the UK things generally have deteriorated - not just in the NHS - since the legendary Nye Bevan created the NHS (it wasn't ground-breaking, I think similar schemes were instituted in Germany under Bismarck but I could well be wrong on that).

Government, indeed public life, in the UK has deteriorated. I have family and friends there and it seems that the UK has left behind the principles that served it pretty well from the end of WWII when the country was free but shatttered until the 1980s when Thatcher took over and absolutely pissed over British values in favour of her idea of a collection of individuals.

Because the UK has lost its way from Thatcher onwards (Tony Blair wasn't a Labour politician, he was Thatcher Lite) and has failed to properly fund the NHS doesn't invalidate the idea of a universal health scheme. Apparently France (never needed health care on the couple of occasions I've been in France thankfully) has a good system, perhaps, unlike the UK, they actually fund it properly.

That's what always happens when government takes over too much of private life. Private life deteriorates. It's happened in every country it's tried. Government sucks at pretty much everything it does.


But my point about hypothesising remains and yes, it's meant to be entirely without any personal references. Look, I know I'm biased. A few years ago I had a mild heart attack (it was but it still made me almost crap my pants) and I received immediate care and underwent an angioplasty (ironically enough the surgeon who carried out the procedure had just returned from several years study and practice in New York City, now the youngest full professor in cardiac surgery we've ever had). I had it done in a timely manner and it didn't cost me one cent. Now I do have private health insurance but it didn't kick in because the treatment I had was on the public dollar.

First off, that's a heart attack, and typically seen as more urgent than a cyst. Second off, take a good, long look at how U.S. politicians cut corners and leverage every tax dollar they can get their hands on to buy votes and then tell me that a socialized health care system here wouldn't be an even bigger disaster than it is in Canada and the UK.

[JohnDoe]

btw hobbit, sounds like MALPRACTICE on your initial diagnosis.

[Hobbit]

btw hobbit, sounds like MALPRACTICE on your initial diagnosis.

Nope, no malpractice. There was no way for the doctor to know it wasn't a cyst, and given the 1 in 1 billion chance there was of it being cancerous, he didn't have a reason to waste hundreds to thousands of dollars checking otherwise when I was getting it removed anyway. What would have made it malpractice is if he hadn't recommended surgery or if we had been in a socialized system where he put me on the low priority surgery waiting list.

[5stringJeff]

However, for about the 11th time today (note, the majority of people I've told this to), somebody told me that my slow and excruciating death at a young age would be an acceptable price to pay if it meant that we had socialized medicine implemented in this country.

Next time you hear this, ask them if their untimely death would be an acceptable price to pay for socialized health care. If they say yes, tell them you'd be happy to assist them with that.

[JohnDoe]

Nope, no malpractice. There was no way for the doctor to know it wasn't a cyst, and given the 1 in 1 billion chance there was of it being cancerous, he didn't have a reason to waste hundreds to thousands of dollars checking otherwise when I was getting it removed anyway. What would have made it malpractice is if he hadn't recommended surgery or if we had been in a socialized system where he put me on the low priority surgery waiting list. i recently had a growth on the top of my hand....it was growing, my parents came in to town to visit, up from florida, they saw it and insisted i go see the doc, they thought it was skin cancer....so i called, the hospital got me in with a doctor two days later and the doc did not think it was cancer but did a biopsy in his office, sent it out to a lab the same day, and i got the results in 3 days....i got the bill for the lab test, it was $75 bucks.... and not cancer....i realize all circumstances are different but for the doctor to tell you with certainty that it was benign without doing a biopsy is pretty scarey to me....

and i hope all is well, with you now hobbit.

[Hobbit]

i recently had a growth on the top of my hand....it was growing, my parents came in to town to visit, up from florida, they saw it and insisted i go see the doc, they thought it was skin cancer....so i called, the hospital got me in with a doctor two days later and the doc did not think it was cancer but did a biopsy in his office, sent it out to a lab the same day, and i got the results in 3 days....i got the bill for the lab test, it was $75 bucks.... and not cancer....i realize all circumstances are different but for the doctor to tell you with certainty that it was benign without doing a biopsy is pretty scarey to me....

and i hope all is well, with you now hobbit.

Well, he recommended me to a specialist (something that takes forever in Canada and the UK), and the specialist called it a 'probably benign tumor' rather than a cyst. He offered a biopsy, but the nature of the tumor wasn't going to change the procedure (getting it taken out) nor was it going to alter my operation date, so we skipped it. We likened it to checking your tire pressure right before installing new tires.

[JohnDoe]

Well, he recommended me to a specialist (something that takes forever in Canada and the UK), and the specialist called it a 'probably benign tumor' rather than a cyst. He offered a biopsy, but the nature of the tumor wasn't going to change the procedure (getting it taken out) nor was it going to alter my operation date, so we skipped it. We likened it to checking your tire pressure right before installing new tires.

makes sense! and different situations between you and me....in fact, my mom complained that Internal med Doc did the biopsy and thought it should have been a dermatomogist at least....but a pathologist did the reading of the biopsy, so that was good enough for me....

[DragonStryk72]

Okay, no offense to England, I'm not tying to slap anyone here, but their entire country could fit inside of New York State, and that's not even our biggest one.

I mean, seriously, I know it works to a certain degree in smaller countries, and that's fine, good for y'all. I just don't see socialized health care working out here, especially due to the our own bureaucracy. It would be spread too wide, and too costly to maintain the system properly. I mean, shit, we have enough problems with Driver's Licenses, how on earth are we going to run medical?

[manu1959]

Okay, no offense to England, I'm not tying to slap anyone here, but their entire country could fit inside of New York State, and that's not even our biggest one.

I mean, seriously, I know it works to a certain degree in smaller countries, and that's fine, good for y'all. I just don't see socialized health care working out here, especially due to the our own bureaucracy. It would be spread too wide, and too costly to maintain the system properly. I mean, shit, we have enough problems with Driver's Licenses, how on earth are we going to run medical?

having lived in england it doesn't really work there.....in danmark and sweden wher i also lived for a time it does work quite well....

as for the us.....on a state by state basis it might work but not on a national level....

[diuretic]

Okay, no offense to England, I'm not tying to slap anyone here, but their entire country could fit inside of New York State, and that's not even our biggest one.

I mean, seriously, I know it works to a certain degree in smaller countries, and that's fine, good for y'all. I just don't see socialized health care working out here, especially due to the our own bureaucracy. It would be spread too wide, and too costly to maintain the system properly. I mean, shit, we have enough problems with Driver's Licenses, how on earth are we going to run medical?

The point about the size of the country is maybe a bit off. My country is about the same size as the US if you don't count Alaska. My state is larger than the entire British Isles, it would fit in and still have room for another country or two. Our state's biggest cattle station (ranch) is larger than Belgium (got less beer though).

And in my state we have 1.5 million people. That's all.

In Australia we have just 21 million people. So, yes, administering the country is much easier than administering the US for example. Every time I go to your country I always end up thinking it's so complex that I am amazed that it can actually function, the complexity is immense.

But it's the principle that matters. Canada runs its health system on a provincial basis (I think they could do it nationally but what the hell). In France, with its complex web of national and regional governments, their health system is run on a national basis. Biggest country in terms of area in Europe and a fairly large population but it works.

I think perhaps the US is too diverse to see itself as a single nation when it comes to things like health policy, so perhaps a sort of Canadian approach with perhaps a bit of the French system might actually be a reasonable start.

You blokes have a can-do approach, you need to dust it off and give it a go :D

[Hobbit]

You blokes have a can-do approach, you need to dust it off and give it a go :D

Yeah, can-do as in a 'Can do it without the government's help, so get out of my way,' attitude. The reason we were able to expand, grow, and succeed for so long with such a large and diverse population depended on a decentralized government, allowing each region to rule itself as it saw fit with minimal interference from Washington. Notice now, how as power gets moved to Washington, things start to fall apart.

Now, I'm a fan of safety nets. I think they're best provided by private charity, but I could see the need for a little government intervention to protect the people who truly have no way to get health insurance (not the people who simply choose not to get it), but the medical decisions should all be made by a doctor and it should only be available to qualifying candidates if they can either show some evidence that they are trying to pull away from the government teat or show that they are physically incapable of doing so.

Socializing the whole system, however, especially at a national level like everybody's talking about, would be a disaster.

Hey, I just had an idea on how this could work...state level. States like California and Massachusetts can put their money where their mouth is. Those of us with half a brain can keep it the way it is. If you want socialized medicine, you can move to one of those states. If you don't, move away. They could even make everyone show proof of residence to make sure people living on the border don't just cross over for the 'free' health care and then go home.

[diuretic]

Actually over a period of years if some states had a universal (based on the state as you said and not federal of course or this idea wouldn't work) health care system and some carried on business as it exists today, then a bit later both systems could be assessed and maybe some useful information (after the usual stuff about variables being dealt with - pretty easy to see I'm not a statistician) could be produced.

At least that would see the debate move to facts rather than ideology - and that reference goes to all sides, not just one.

[gabosaurus]

If the U.S. ever adopts universal health care, we can only hope it works than in the U.K. Their health care system is a much abused nightmare.
When my best friend Lauren got pregnant, the hospital wanted to schedule her delivery right then. Because that is how they do things. And good luck obtaining medical procedures that some bureaucrat doesn't consider "necessary."

[Kathianne]

Actually over a period of years if some states had a universal (based on the state as you said and not federal of course or this idea wouldn't work) health care system and some carried on business as it exists today, then a bit later both systems could be assessed and maybe some useful information (after the usual stuff about variables being dealt with - pretty easy to see I'm not a statistician) could be produced.

At least that would see the debate move to facts rather than ideology - and that reference goes to all sides, not just one.

I've not read through everything. With that said, are you saying we should have states try it, if it doesn't work, abandon it, if inadequate? Sorry, that sounds unlikely that whatever level of government would let go.

[diuretic]

If the U.S. ever adopts universal health care, we can only hope it works than in the U.K. Their health care system is a much abused nightmare.
When my best friend Lauren got pregnant, the hospital wanted to schedule her delivery right then. Because that is how they do things. And good luck obtaining medical procedures that some bureaucrat doesn't consider "necessary."

True enough, but it would be a mistake to overlook the years 1979-1990
and 1997-2007 and the effect of a hostile ideology on the NHS. The principle is sound, its management depends on competent government.

[diuretic]

I've not read through everything. With that said, are you saying we should have states try it, if it doesn't work, abandon it, if inadequate? Sorry, that sounds unlikely that whatever level of government would let go.

I was sort of thinking it would be a useful longer term experiment. In reality it wouldn't happen.