Our country spends more per capita on health care than any
other place in the world.

Yet by many measures - such as infant mortality and life
expectancy - we fall behind many smaller and less prosperous
nations.

The United States and South Africa are the only industrialized
countries that do not have a national health program for their
citizens.

Do you think this is a problem.  If so, what would you recommen

22 responses total.

I think it is a problem but one that the government should
lead us to solve in our communities to meet our unique needs.

The problem is spending MOST of the research money on the investigation of
AIDS.  There are actually very few people who get AIDS, and quite a few who
get Breast or Prostate cancer depending on Gender.  I think all we have to
do is send the research money to the BIG killer, not the lingering killer.

        The thing with AIDS is not how many people it kills, but how
SURELY it kills.  What's more,it's really starting to spread.
        I am utterly disgusted by people who talk about the "free 
market" taking care of health care.  Medicine is not a commodity.  You don't 
go to the doctor because you feel like it; you go because you have to.
What's more, we as a society apparently think that at least under 
certain circumstances, people should be provided with health care regard-
less of ability to pay.  That's why we have emergency rooms.  However, for most
cases, it would be a much better use of resources to spend the money
on PREVENTATIVE CARE to keep people out of the emergency rooms.  People
talk about how the big, bad government is going to ration care.  NEWS FLASH:
It's already rationed, but it's rationed out in terms of how wealthy the
patient is.

        Isn't there another item about the same subject on another
conference?

 
        Anyone who thinks socialized health care is a solution, though, hasn't
been to a country with socialized health care.  Health care is one of those
industries that runs most efficiently and cheaply under a controlled market,
but needs to be more carefully controlled in some areas, and less in others.
 
        I'd support the idea of a basic low-level national health insurance.
I can't see anyone who's less willing to part with a few dollars and save
lives, than to keep lower taxes and watch some of the poor die, in a very
nice light.

I haven't read in this item that anyone was for socialized health
care.  Can you define socialized health care for me please and
explain what you would prefer?

I've spent a couple of years living in Sweden and have become fairly
familiar with the british healthcare system.  It seems to me that, although
neither system is perfect, both are far and away better than what we in the
US hae, except, maybe, in the wealthier communities.

I am definitely in favour of socialized medecine.  OK, it makes it
tougher for a rich old man with a 40 year history of fatty diet and 
smoking to rush out and order up a quadruple-bypass to go, but it
makes the overall health of the population so much better that it has
far ranging impact on education and all sorts of things.

John, I've met quite a few people who believe that keeping taxes low is more
important than health care for the poor.  Some are in my community and quite
a few I meet in church!  I think you might be surprised at who opposes 
health care legislation:
Many religious right people believe that Mr. Clinton is the devil incarnate.
They oppose anything and everything he does.  Including abortion coverage
in his health care package does not endear him to them any more.
In addition, AIDS and HIV are seen in many religious communities as an act of
God to punish  sinners.  Sort of  Sodom and Gomora with biological warfare.
(they quit talking about it in public, but they still believe it)
There's also the feeling that poor people sponge off the middle class..
The prevailing sentiment is that their poverty is teir own doing, and they
what they get....  It wouldn't be such a problem if it could be included
under the catagory of Christian Charity, but Christianity, at least here in
Northeast Ohio is seen as "a White Thang'", and the perception is that all
welfare cases are black.  Anyway, if everybody was chipping in, then they
couldn't call it Christian Charity.  
Don't go away thnking I'm down on the church.  I love my church and I love
my god, and I'm doing the best I can to guide them towards the greater good,
most people in my church think like me....  It's just a few of the radicals
who use the church as a soapbox to air their personal hatreds.
I guess I just wanted you to see that there are a lot of people who oppose
national health care in America, and to air some of the reasons why.

Personally, I'm not opposed to socialized medicine as such, or
stuff like that, but I don't trust Mr. Clinton *at all* to have
my welfare in mind, as opposed to his own agenda of what he 
thinks my welfare should be.

grace, do you trust any politicians or is it Mr. Clinton in particular?

Umm -- Bev Hammerstrom seems to be OK, at least sensible.  There are 
a few others.  Jimmy Carter isn't a politician any more.
You might say I take them all with a grain of salt,when I have to
take them. And in particular, almost everything I've heard about the current
Surgeon General has roused suspicion.

What have you heard about the current Surgeon General.  I haven't
heard anything (that I recall).  I don't even know who s/he is.

She.  I don't remember her name, though it would be familiar if I
heard it, and I'm vague about the other stuff.  She thinks all drugs
should be legalized, as I recall, but all cigarette advertising
should be banned, and she seemed to really believe that "safe sex"
was harmless.  Besides supporting abortion, of course.  Generally
politically correct.

Wasn't she the one who created a stir by suggesting off-hand that
legalization of marijuana (or was it drugs in general?) should be considered?

What is the connection between safe sex and abortion and why does
the position that "safe sex was harmless" contradict support for abortion?
The term "safe sex" refers to avoiding transmitting venereal disease,
particularly AIDS, while abortion is a form of contraception--preventing
pregnancy.  Having an abortion will NOT affect your HIV status.

        Yes, that was she.  
        (The "besides" was connecting the places of two ideas in my mind, 
not the ideas themselves, & did not mean to confuse) The term "safe sex" 
seems to mean "sex with a condom", which reduces *but does not eliminate* 
the risk of transmitting/receiving VD.  And I personally oppose abortion 
because it is not really a form of contra-ception and it does not prevent 
pregnancy, but rather terminates an existing pregnancy by causing death 
for the youngest entity involved.

Abortion is not a form of contraception.

Do you support abortion when the pregnancy or delivery will cause
death to the oldest entity (the mother) involved?

        "Support", no ...  sometimes it may be the lesser of two evils.
(That's a medical decision, though, & medical progress has greatly
reduced the number of such cases)  I personally would not want my child's 
life to be sacrificed for mine, at any age.

I *have* been to a country that has socialized medicine (actually, almost
every industrialized nation has some form of socialized medicine), and I
have to say that, compared to what I've seen here in the Detroit Medical
Center, things over there looked pretty good.  I've seen the insides of a
couple of hospitals, had some in-laws become very ill, and was quite impressed
with the efficiency and care given them.  Not to mention the food even looked
edible.  I will admit that getting a regular appointment for a  non-acute
illness takes a little time, but at least you can get one,  and no one asks for
your insurance card or "payment arrangements" while you are sick and in pain. 
There were, however, no TV's in the hospital rooms.  And, when we called my
mother-in-law who was in the hospital, since there are no bedside phone, they
had to broadcast the conversation thru the hospital PA...(they nurses were
excited that she was getting a call *all the way* from America, and went to
great lengths to make sure we could  at least say "hi".  I'd say that any
country with an infant mortality rate as high as ours has a lot to learn...

Amen, Liz.  There can be no excuse for a developed country to have a neonatal
death rate that would shame many 3rd world countries.

Also, I must say that although I support "pro-choice", I don't think of
abortion as contraception.  I don't think it's ethical to regard it as
contraception -- it's an extreme measure to be taken in extreme circumstances.
In my opinion, it's the woman who should define "extreme circumstances, though.
Not the government, and not the neighbors.

Well the excuse often given is that we can't afford it.  This is an 
utterly *amaaaazing* excuse IMHO.  I think it has something to do with 
this country's puritan/calvanistic philosophical heritage:  hard work
brings its rewards.  Of course, this is twisted around to mean:  if you 
haven't gotten your rewards, it must be because you haven't worked hard.
In my opinion, the best way to reform the health care system in this country
is to provid *everyone* with the *same* health care coverage.  From the 
President on down.  See how fast things improve wait when the politicians
have to wait in line with the unwashed...
reminds me of Ed McNamara's visit to Metro Airport.  When he had to pay $2
for a muffin, the whole food service system was reformed and now offers
some of the most reasonably-priced food in any airport in the country.
and *yes*, i do have a reasonably good health insurance policy, but i also know
what it's like to not have one.  The situation is disgusting and ...
i can't even go on.  i admit i don't know how to solve it...or even if
it will be solved.  how depressing.
the level of exploitation in this country is amazing.

Liz, what would you do about certain benefits, like test tube
fertilization for infertility cases?  Now, those with good jobs
and good insurance have such coverage.  Should all women, single
or married, rich or poor be supplied this coverage as basic benefits?
Should those who now have such coverage be expected to pay for such
procedures out of their pocket (at $7,000 each attempt)?  What
would be fair and right?

I think this it was Oregon who actually had this debate, several
times in public to decide what services to offer in their state
health care plan.  I don't know what they decided but I doubt
if in vitro fertilization is included in their benefits.

It's not included but then Oregon's plan isn't mandated for
everyone.  I believe that's what Liz was suggesting as a good
idea.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss