Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Re: "Waiting Game" Paul Krugman thumps the healthcare debate | |
|
Author: Duncan7 |
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 11:19:15 07/18/07 Wed In reply to: Mo' Green 's message, ""Waiting Game" Paul Krugman thumps the healthcare debate" on 11:59:19 07/16/07 Mon Funny he doesn't mention most states have their own program anyway. You guys really love to leave things out. no wonder we're in the shape we are in. >The Waiting Game > By Paul Krugman > The New York Times > > Monday 16 July 2007 > > Being without health insurance is no big deal. >Just ask President Bush. "I mean, people have access >to health care in America," he said last week. "After >all, you just go to an emergency room." > > This is what you might call callousness with >consequences. The White House has announced that Mr. >Bush will veto a bipartisan plan that would extend >health insurance, and with it such essentials as >regular checkups and preventive medical care, to an >estimated 4.1 million currently uninsured children. >After all, it's not as if those kids really need >insurance - they can just go to emergency rooms, right? > > O.K., it's not news that Mr. Bush has no empathy >for people less fortunate than himself. But his >willful ignorance here is part of a larger picture: by >and large, opponents of universal health care paint a >glowing portrait of the American system that bears as >little resemblance to reality as the scare stories >they tell about health care in France, Britain, and >Canada. > > The claim that the uninsured can get all the care >they need in emergency rooms is just the beginning. >Beyond that is the myth that Americans who are lucky >enough to have insurance never face long waits for >medical care. > > Actually, the persistence of that myth puzzles me. >I can understand how people like Mr. Bush or Fred >Thompson, who declared recently that "the poorest >Americans are getting far better service" than >Canadians or the British, can wave away the >desperation of uninsured Americans, who are often poor >and voiceless. But how can they get away with >pretending that insured Americans always get prompt >care, when most of us can testify otherwise? > > A recent article in Business Week put it bluntly: >"In reality, both data and anecdotes show that the >American people are already waiting as long or longer >than patients living with universal health-care >systems." > > A cross-national survey conducted by the >Commonwealth Fund found that America ranks near the >bottom among advanced countries in terms of how hard >it is to get medical attention on short notice >(although Canada was slightly worse), and that America >is the worst place in the advanced world if you need >care after hours or on a weekend. > > We look better when it comes to seeing a >specialist or receiving elective surgery. But Germany >outperforms us even on those measures - and I suspect >that France, which wasn't included in the study, >matches Germany's performance. > > Besides, not all medical delays are created equal. >In Canada and Britain, delays are caused by doctors >trying to devote limited medical resources to the most >urgent cases. In the United States, they're often >caused by insurance companies trying to save money. > > This can lead to ordeals like the one recently >described by Mark Kleiman, a professor at U.C.L.A., >who nearly died of cancer because his insurer kept >delaying approval for a necessary biopsy. "It was only >later," writes Mr. Kleiman on his blog, "that I >discovered why the insurance company was stalling; I >had an option, which I didn't know I had, to avoid all >the approvals by going to 'Tier II,' which would have >meant higher co-payments." > > He adds, "I don't know how many people my >insurance company waited to death that year, but I'm >certain the number wasn't zero." > > To be fair, Mr. Kleiman is only surmising that his >insurance company risked his life in an attempt to get >him to pay more of his treatment costs. But there's no >question that some Americans who seemingly have good >insurance nonetheless die because insurers are trying >to hold down their "medical losses" - the industry >term for actually having to pay for care. > > On the other hand, it's true that Americans get >hip replacements faster than Canadians. But there's a >funny thing about that example, which is used >constantly as an argument for the superiority of >private health insurance over a government-run system: >the large majority of hip replacements in the United >States are paid for by, um, Medicare. > > That's right: the hip-replacement gap is actually >a comparison of two government health insurance >systems. American Medicare has shorter waits than >Canadian Medicare (yes, that's what they call their >system) because it has more lavish funding - end of >story. The alleged virtues of private insurance have >nothing to do with it. > > The bottom line is that the opponents of universal >health care appear to have run out of honest >arguments. All they have left are fantasies: horror >fiction about health care in other countries, and >fairy tales about health care here in America. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |