I saw the interview and felt that the talk concerning health care reform was pretty good. As for HR 1207, they'd recently talked about Obama's new effort to - as doctor jones put it above - "rewrite Federal Reserve powers". From a mainstream media point of view, they probably didn't think it very politic to talk about transparency in the Fed after bringing that up.
Ron Paul is spot on as usual. My relatives have had terrible experiences in Canada - waiting for months for basic services that we'd get the same day down here, or having serious medical problems without being able to get a proper diagnosis. And yet they are so propagandized they will insist that it's better. "If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's 'free.'"
Beyond that, Dr. Paul remembers a time when things were far better and more affordable... in his lifetime! Before the government got involved.
But you could just feel the media advancing these ideas against common sense. :(
"Beyond that, Dr. Paul remembers a time when things were far better and more affordable... in his lifetime! Before the government got involved."
I noted that statement as well. I am not old enough to really remember anything about health care in Ron Paul's time, but even giving in that health care was cheaper (I guess??) and "their weren't people out on the streets begging for medical care"...what would be a REAL answer then to the problem we do have other than getting the government involved once more???
If my family did not have insurance through my husbands job I know we would def. not see the dr. but only in emergencies and not having insurance would put the whole bill on our family (which if the bill was the price during Ron Paul's time, it would be much easier to pay). A roll of gauze should cost $327!!!! If you or I could not pay our own medical bills guess who gets to pay it? The next patient (thus the higher and over priced services & supplies).
What about those who are unfortunate and do not have an income or rely on medicaid to pay and provide medical services??? What would we do to change the health care system that could make medical care available to them. Are the Dr.'s today kind and charitable to allow payments or provide services for free from time to time? I know from personal experience they are not, although there are some out there that are charitable, most are not.
I'd like an answer...before Obama "fixes" the problem and creates a larger one as he makes another office for the "MEDICAL CZAR"
I'm a Licensed Insurance Broker and I remember my Doctor once telling me that he has to shell out over $100,000.00 per year for Malpractice Insurance.
Regardless of how much money my Doctor makes,lawsuits is what is driving healthcare costs up.I once dated a girl who was a Pharmaceutical Rep.She told me that the possiblity of a Law Suit factors about 50% into the costs of prescription medicine.
Since most politicians (including Obama) are Lawyers, the likelihood of Bills being passed to reduce the amount of payout to Law Firms is grim.
HR 1207 is a great start. But we need lots of reform in our Government. From lobbying to transparency.
"This town needs an enema!" - The Joker (Jack Nicholson)Batman
I just had one. I waited 7 hours in the waiting room.
Posted 06/15/09 10:55 AM justinb Oklahoma City, OK
We need more Canadians chiming in on how their office visits go and what they think of their medical care. However, I would like to add that most new medicine comes from the U.S. via R&D which is funded primarily by the high prices that us american citizens pay. While other countries get the benefit of making / getting something similar using the recipe we paid for. This doesn't bother me much, but who will pay for the creation of these new medicines once our health care is socialized?
Blunt, it depends on the surgery. Generally it's scheduled, and you go in at your alotted time, so there is little waiting at all in my experience (never more than an hour). However, walk-in office visits in a busy area can be up to 2 hours in my experience.
Dr. Paul done a great job as usual. The only problems with these interviews is that there is not enough time to explain why the gov. drives up the cost. I know its obvious to us but to most people its not. I'm glad he got to through in there that before the gov. got involved it was much cheaper. Having that come from someone who experienced the system first hand means alot.
Two things I'm not sure about when did health insurance become a "right" and when did people start using insurance for every little doctor visit as opposed to emergencies only? That being said, the market is trying to fix itself as alot of insurance companies are starting to offer low premium/high deductible plans coupled with a health savings account. Guess what with these plans INDIVIDUALS have more control over how the money is spent.
How then should the sky-rocketing costs for healthcare be controlled or reduced? I'm a counselor/supervisor who works with fee-for-service clients only and do not nor have I ever taken insurance. This I believe puts the power between 2 private parties (the client and the counselor/provider).
I've heard what is driving up the costs including the 3rd parties, "greedy" doctors, lawsuits, gov. involvement throughout. I'm sure I have missed a few things with the reforming process. I read about the Savings plans, and having individual Citizens gain more control over their healthcare. What are other solutions/answers and/or how can the mentioned be strengthened?
Health Maintenance has become the norm. We go to doctors, they prescribe tests and then medications. Without regular continued visits to the doctor, prescription renewals are denied. This is our current system.
Used to be, you went to the doctor when you were sick and I mean really sick. Preventative health care using our current health care system is a racket. Doctors can't be doctors and patients are simply consumers.
Anything the government gets its claws into is inevitably corrupted and broken.
[quote]Two things I'm not sure about when did health insurance become a "right" and when did people start using insurance for every little doctor visit as opposed to emergencies only?[/quote]
I'll answer the second part first. Started sometime in the early 70's when congres started getting their fingers into HMOs.
On the first part: I frankly have no idea where the "right" to healthcare comes from, and frankly, that as a thought in peoples mind scares me. It's the proverbial slipery slope thing.
The only explaination I have ever heard about why it's a "right" is that it is a necessity. Well doesnt it follow that everything else on Maslow's heirarchy of needs should also be covered as a right? People have the right to government mandated sex then? Companionship? Government mandated acceptance of facts?
There is nothing in current jurisprudence that could even come close to explaining how Health Care is a "right", especially when you consider it's significance in daily human life as compaired to say water or food (basic human needs). The whole :health care is a right" argumanet is just something thats been started by the left wingers to try to change peoples attitudes about a system that will absolutely bankrupt our country within a couple of generations. Think about it like this: Medicare/Medicaid along with Social Security, are going to cost about as much as our GDP sometime within the next 25 years or so. And they want to add more people onto the government teet?
Posted 06/16/09 12:05 AM Canuck12 New Westminster, Canada
Justinb asked for more oppinions from Canadians:
I have lived in Canada my whole life and am a student of Political science and Economics and a full supporter of the Campaign for Liberty and Ron Paul.
That being said, I find the Canadian single-payer "Social Health Insurance System" (not "socialized medicine") to be far superior to any system that currently exists and to be superior to the theoretical "absolute free market" system. I am willing to defend this is a reasoned debate.
The economics of healthcare has been a field of study of mine and I believe that anyone who has looked at the data with an open and rational mind will find that a single-payer system is the only effective way of keeping costs in check and providing adequate services to those in need.
People often talk about how many Canadians go to the states to get care which cannot or will not be provided in Canada. This is true, some people do this. This is because in Canada if there is a service or procedure in short supply (say perhaps, heart transplants) then they are provided to people based on need. Which means those who are in a more life threatening situation will be provided care in priority. Indeed, some people must wait; those who can afford to buy their way to the front of the queue go to the United States but in Canada wealth does not come before need.
The goal of the Canadian system (and any insurance at all) is to transfer resources from the healthy and wealthy to the unhealthy and unwealthy. The Canadian system does this far better than the American system at far less cost (to the government and the individual) and manages to cover a much larger portion of the population.
I am more than happy to answer any questions or challenges about either the Canadian system or health economics in general, personal messages welcome.
Personally, I have never had a problem receiving medical care in Canada and have never paid out of pocket for physician or hospital services.
Canadian Health Care: I highly recommend "On the Fence Films" (Stuart Browning). Stuart has made several very informative and very watchable watchable films that focus on the Canadian health care system/experience from the consumer's viewpoint. I have seen several, starting with "Dead Meat", which I highly recommend.
On The Fence films home page:
http://www.onthefencefilms.com/
There are several films, "Dead Meat" is towards the bottom on the left.
Posted 06/16/09 09:44 AM justinb Oklahoma City, OK
Canuck12,
Thanks for chiming in. About how long on average is an office visit up there?
I also think that your foreign policy up north is much better than ours, and is a large reason why you guys can afford a government health care. With the massive amounts of wasteful spending from our government for wars, and countless other things, this looks to be like a burden on an already loaded down camel.
With mandated Collectivist government health care, the government will soon be regulating what kinds of food you will be able to eat, what beverages you are allowed to drink, etc. I hope you all like broccoli, as the benevolent government nanny will soon be forcing it down your throat.
The Senate Finance Committee is already considering imposing a federal excise tax on soda pop and other sugar-containing drinks to begin payments for government-mandated health care. Cigarettes and soda pop are just the tip of the sword for controlling the masses. It is a government recipe for tyranny.
Once government has the power to regulate what you can eat, they can also start controlling your calorie count if they so choose. The potential implications of that power alone are staggering to me. Government being able to control their subjects' caloric intakes, weakening the populace, making those subjects more "docile" and willing to accept being controlled by their government keepers? That is a road we don't need to start to go down to know that it is bad juju.
Please, Dr. Paul get some more research done on the health care issue. Regardless of what policy is made health care expenditures are going to go up over the next ten years; the baby boomers are aging and seniors ALWAYS spend more on healthcare than other demographic groups. Also please emphasize that healthcare revenues and profits do not go into a black hole or a doctor's mattress. The US pharmaceutical and medical device industry leads the world, and this is a recent phenomenon-- only in the last 5 years or so. Why? Because scientists are looking for some payment and only a market that allows seniors to spend on healthcare is going to get the money to us scientists.
So talking points to research: (1) aging population means higher percapita spending and higher percentage of GDP on healthcare; (2) In the last 5-10 years the U.S. has come to dominate world medical research and development; (3) price distortions in healthcare will keep scientists from pursuing applications (If prices for pure and applied research are set by the fed then who would want to do applied research?).
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
