From: Ian.Hebert@f1125.n261.z1.fidonet.org (Ian Hebert)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: American Health Care  1/
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:25:36 GMT
Reply-To: Ian.Hebert@f1125.n261.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: FidoNet node 1:261/1125 - NFB NET, Baltimore MD
X-Fidonet: Able News Conference

Index Number: 24377

[This is from the AbleNews Conference]

In a message to Earl Appleby <08-08-92 (20:45)> Joe Chamberlain wrote:

JC> First, let me make it perfectly clear that I am a
JC> supporter of the Medicare and Medicaid programs.  However,
JC> I do not believe that we should fund every procedure and
JC> medical cure that comes down the pike.

JC> The obvious reason is that our country is in the midst of an economic
JC> crisis.  It not only can not afford to fully fund every
JC> medical procedure, but it also cannot afford to fund many
JC> of the thinggs which it is already funding.  The government
JC> must stop spending more than it takes in if our country is
JC> to retain autonomy.  Therefore, without raising taxes
JC> significantly, it absolutely must find ways to cut things
JC> that are already being funded.
____________________

Joe:

I thought I'd make a number of general comments from a Canadian
perspective.

First of all, it's really no wonder that health care has become such a
major election issue in the current presidential campaign.  With some 37
million Americans totally without health insurance, and millions more
with severely inadequate insurance, I am surprised that it has taken
this long to become an issue.  (It frankly boggles my mind that the
number of people in the U.S. without any health insurance coverage is
equal to one and one-half times the entire Canadian population!)

As a general rule, I understand that most Americans receive health
insurance benefits through their employer as a benefit.  With the
declining economy, with its associated rise in unemployment, many more
Americans have lost (and continue to lose) their medical coverage.

For Americans whose employers do not provide health care as a benefit,
the situation is even worse. The continued downward pressure on wages
makes is ever harder (if not impossible) to afford rapidly spiralling
health insurance premiums.

In * any * system, whether it's a so-called "free enterprise" based
medical system as you have in the United States, or whether it's a
so-called "socialized medicine" system, medical care is subject to
limitations of one kind or another.  There are * never * enough
resources to meet every demand--the only real difference is the manner
in which health-care resources are allocated.

Apparently, in the United States, the sole criteria for allocation of
medical care is the individual's ability to pay.  A wealthy individual
who requires a triple-bypass operation can see his doctor today, and be
on the operating table next week.  A person without adequate insurance
(or other resources), such as an unemployed person, more than likely
will have to either forego treatment or risk bankrupting himself and his
family to pay for the treatment.

I would judge from the tenor of your remarks that you are most likely a
conservative, right-wing Republican.  As such, you would probably agree
with President Bush's remarks made during his acceptance speech at the
Republican National Convention.  In this speech, he made remarks to the
effect that a socialized medical scheme would remove Americans' right
to choose their own doctor; to choose their own hospital.  He also made
remarks to the effect that socialized medicine would have 'all the the
compassion of the KGB.'

This is nothing but scaremongering.  We do not have "socialized
medicine" in Canada; we have "socialized insurance."  There is a
difference.  Instead of having 2,000 separate privately-run insurance
companies, we have a single payer system--that payer is the government
of the province wherein one resides, in this case, Ontario.  We have had
this so-called "socialized medicine" for a generation now; I have lived
in two provinces, Ontario and Quebec and I *never* have been told what
doctor or hospital to go to.  I choose my own physicans; I choose what
hospitals I go to.

As a matter of fact, it was reported in the news here that the Journal
of the American Medical Association (if memory serves me) contained an
interesting study.   This study concluded that if the United States did
nothing else but adopt a single-payer system as we have here in Canada,
the cost savings would be more than enough to provide health coverage
for every person in the United States.  In the current system in the
U.S. some 16 cents of your health care dollar goes for administration;
only 84 cents goes for actual health care.

You make reference to raising taxes and funding cuts.  Would it surprise
you to learn that Americans are among the lowest-taxed people in the
world?  If Americans scrapped the current bloated, inefficient system of
allocating health care there would be more than enough resources to
provide each and every American with health care.

But don't just take my word for it--the following quotes are from
Patricia Bregman, who is an American expatriate living in Canada.  She
has experience with the medical systems both in the U.S. and Canada.
Her comments make interesting reading.  Here they are:

Quoting: PATRICIA BREGMAN <07-22-92 (20:06)>  Ability Online, Toronto

PB> I agree - that [health care] is one of the big differences between
PB> Canada and the US. The US, or at least the government,
PB> think of health care as a privilege, not a right as we
PB> to here.  Now that fewer people can afford insurance or
PB> their insurance doesn't pay all of it they are beginning
PB> to understand how important it is.

PB>  ... I grew up in the US and can't move back
PB> because I can't get health insurance.  I also have a
PB> sister in Dallas who has a chronic illness - she has
PB> insurance but it is still very expensive (so is the
PB> insurance - some people pay more than $500/month for
PB> limited coverage).

PB> It is really sad to talk to people in the US who get
PB> sicker and sicker.   Some of the people I know with
PB> Crohns who need Home TPN (Intravenous nutrition) have
PB> a very hard time getting it paid for so they sometimes
PB> have to do without.

>>> Continued to next message

 * OLX 2.1 TD * The "Moral Majority" is neither.

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!261!1125!Ian.Hebert
Internet: Ian.Hebert@f1125.n261.z1.fidonet.org