Senate approves allowing Canadian drugs

[CyberGuy]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I am a little curious as to what you mean by medicare companies making a profit. What medicare company? Medicare premiums are deducted automatically from your SS check every month by the federal government. Unless the federal government then dispurses these premiums to private insurance companies, there is no medicare company.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I never meant to give the impression there were medicare companies. There are none. I meant hospitals or doctors dealing with medicare. Those are the companies I meant. Companies that deal with medicare. Sorry for the confusion.

These companies dealing with medicare do not make much money on medicare in fact many lose money on medicare patients so they have to limit how many medicare patients they allow their company to take on because of this fact.

Medicare are good for the elderly on limited income but bad for the medical profession as a whole. The government does not pay enough for the expensive medical care they require hospitals to give. Some doctors due to the red tape and low profits or even a loss refuse to take on medicare patients.

[bevin]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

However if you are saying that 50% ends up in the pocket of the attorney, not true. At least not 50% as profit.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

It goes into the costs of the court, the lawyers, the experts, the lawyers premises, the lawyers clerks, etc. etc. etc.

But the point is, it goes, and it doesn't go to the injured party - and when it does go, sometimes the jury makes outrageous awards.

NZ got rid of the emotion and the legal wrangle.

/Bevin

[Gerr]

That's the first time I have ever heard of samples being given out for a fee. Never seen it happen in all the hospitals I have ever been in.

Gerry

[bonnie]

.My mother's care was paid for thru the insurance my siblings and I provided. I am curious as to what criteria you use for "elderly". We would never have okayed keeping her alive artificially or in a vegetative state. Had her Dr determined her worth and value at the time she was brought in by your criteria as far as I can tell, she would not have lived another very happy and productive(not on your terms) six years. Even without insurance my mother would have received the same care. Yes, it would have cost the taxpayer a bundle. But for what I know my mother had the last six years of her life, I would without flinching okay and agree to the same care for anyone's parent.

Dollars are being extracted from me and everyone else by force everyday. Many choosing not to provide their own insurance.

I know that when you use the word poor and choose in the same breath you have stepped on the sacred.

I know to many that have made the choice not to pay for insurance. When they run into trouble they forceably take money from me.

Many choices are a result of motivation and a willingness/unwilliingness to provide for their own familes.

I have had many acquaintances with elderly parents who would never consider paying for the premium of supplemental insurance for their parents. For my mother we paid 140.00 a month.

After all, let the government pay, that is what they are there for is their answer.

Among those of my neighbors and co-workers personal motivation and a desire to take care of their own is striking between those that don't have the same mindset.

Two women that work with me, social/marital/children very equal.

One works only a twenty hour week for her fun money. Is difficult to work with in the event a little extra effort is required. Her response is "They don't pay me enough for that"

The other works 2 part time jobs as in this situation gives her higher pay. Her workday is 12 hours, five days a week. Beginning at 4:00 in the morning. Willing to pitch in and do whatever is required.

The one working 20 hours a week has no insurance on her family, they cannot afford it.

The other has.

It is the able bodied that take and take that put a bigger bite out of my pocket than those that legitametly cannot pay for themselves.

[bonnie]

With your criteria for saving the life of a very high risk baby, my son would also have been allowed to die. His bill was covered by insurance but had that not been so, my DR would have worked as hard to save his life.

He would not have held this non breathing baby, fearing as he did for the handicaps he would live with and decide he was not worth the cost.

We had a very rocky first year, but personally he has always been a joy and in addition a very productive, paying citizen.

Beautiful family, a highly respected job in his field and most importantly a very committed christian.

[bonnie]

Out of curiosity I have scanned thru some articles on the internet dealing with socialized medicine. Not all countries, mainly Canada and a little on New Zealand. Canada is so often held up as the ideal model for socialized medicine that I am assuming it is similar altho maybe not identical to all socialized countries.

I keep trying to find a reason that makes this so desirable and for the life of me can't do it.

I have no idea of the political leanings of those that wrote the articles. I believe I went thru enough there should be a bit of all sides. All I see is a far more expensive, far less efficient provision of medical care. Taking away my right to choose the quality of medical care and services I am willing to work for in a large part to provide for those the demand the same right without the effort involved. The figure my canadian cousin gave me seem to be largely verified thru these articles.

Can someone please explain their logic in their fierce determination to have the "government provide free medical care"

My cousin was paying over 5,000.00 per year of money forcibly taken from her for this free service of long waiting list for medical tests and services. Because of the quality of this free service she relied on the additional expense of an american insurance policy to save her husband's life. No waiting list,testing immediately and surgery and followup care. Had it not been for that american policy and our much maliagned health care she would not have been allowed to pay and save her husband's life. The length of the waiting list also seems to be borne out in the articles I pulled up. Services paid for that should have been available.

In Canada I have no doubt I would no longer have a husband. He began having strokes a 58 and no one could figure out why. After the last one a very bright and intuitive physican's assistent was put in charge of my husband's general care.

He was concerned as the strokes were becoming more frequent and the last one was the worst. His physical health and all vitals were perfect. The Dr said if he did not know the history he would believe he was looking at the chart of an athletic 30 year old. He went on to say my husband would die a very early death if we did not get to the bottom of the problem.

I have lost count of the tests or their names. It was one after another. It seemed pretty fruitless. This Dr was not ready to quit and kept on, specialist after specialist. Finally we had our answer. He was scheduled for surgery.. Again, in Canada I believe I would have lost him. Something was still not sitting right with our DR and 48 hours before surgery scheduled him for more tests. With the results the surgery was cancelled. They had found a very rare clotting factor in his blood that made him far to high a risk with his stroke history.

Had he even been scheduled for all this testing when he appeared so healthy I can't even calcuate the time it would have taken.

Tell me again what I am missing

[bonnie]

Bevin,

Can you tell me how bad or if the numbers have changed for the better since the law regarding lawsuits went into effect in your native country.

Reading articles like this, I believe my husband would be dead today. No thanks for all the government freebies. After paying 5,000.00 give or take for "free care" I would not be a happy camper with the following

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10382199

(As of March, the Waitemata and central Auckland boards had over 8000 patients waiting more than six months either to see a specialist for a first assessment, or to have treatment).

Raise bar for elective surgery, says Government

17.05.06

(Martin Johnson, New Zealand Herald 5/17/06)

Thousands of patients in Auckland face removal from specialist or surgery waiting lists as public hospitals can't keep up with referrals from GPs.

The Health Ministry has threatened the Waitemata District Health Board with punishment that could cost it $3 million a year if it does not comply with policy on elective services.

As of March, the Waitemata and central Auckland boards had over 8000 patients waiting more than six months either to see a specialist for a first assessment, or to have treatment.

The "improvement required" by the ministry is to reduce the total by more than 6000 patients, suffering from conditions including rotten teeth, heart disease and gall bladder trouble.

The Government wants patients to be on public hospital waiting lists only if they are sick or disabled enough, under the rationing system, to qualify to be seen/treated within six months.

In a March letter to the Waitemata board, obtained by the Herald under the Official Information Act, then-Director-General of Health Karen Poutasi said: "I am writing to you to express my concern at the lack of satisfactory progress ... "

The letter in effect threatens intensive financial monitoring for non-compliance. This would cost the board about $3 million annually in forgone interest payments because funding would come at the end of each month instead of the start.

It requires compliance by June 30, which is also the deadline for most services at the Auckland board in a similar letter obtained by National health spokesman Tony Ryall.

The Government acknowledged this month that 10,000 to 14,000 patients a year are removed from public specialist waiting lists and returned to the care of a GP.

Waitemata's chief executive, Dwayne Crombie, said yesterday that its response to Dr Poutasi's letter included increasing the access "bar" to elective services and getting GPs to care for some patients who did not need to be referred to a specialist.

Patients would be removed from the first-specialist-assessment list, but no "big dumps" were planned and he expected improvement towards compliance within three months.

Although Waitemata was doing more elective surgery than last year, the access bar to elective services had risen in the past five years as Government funding had not kept pace with the area's rapidly ageing population.

"The critical group that drives services is those over 65 and over 75."

"There's a tendency to accept referrals even though we know we can't see them because they ... need help; but that's not good enough ... if we take too many referrals it's hard to see the ones that need to be seen."

Mr Ryall said the letters showed the Government "is only interested in culling waiting lists instead of trying to have more patients seen or treated".

The Auckland board said the number of patients likely to be referred back to their GP had not yet been established. It expected to comply with the policy by the end of next month.

NON-COMPLIANCE

* Auckland District Health Board: 3200 patients waiting longer than six months for a first assessment by a specialist.

* Waitemata Board: 2232.

* Auckland: 2355 waiting longer than six months following a commitment they will be treated.

* Waitemata: 710.

Source: Ministry of Health latest snapshot, taken in March.

[bevin]

The govt provided safety net is NOT going to be as high as the paid-for-by-insurance care that you get here.

And nor should it be.

Specifically it is not going to provide elective minor surgery for health middle-aged people, nor is it going to provide expensive treatment for elderly or the young.

Its purpose should be to provide an appropriate level of critical care for all ages - and, yes, there is a debate needed in society for what that level of care should be.

The system in the USA right now is - everybody gets exorbitant amounts of care, without economic justification - and we bill very arbitrarily some portions of society to pay for it.

/Bevin

[bonnie]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

bevin said:

The govt provided safety net is NOT going to be as high as the paid-for-by-insurance care that you get here.

And nor should it be.

Specifically it is not going to provide elective minor surgery for health middle-aged people, nor is it going to provide expensive treatment for elderly or the young.

Its purpose should be to provide an appropriate level of critical care for all ages - and, yes, there is a debate needed in society for what that level of care should be.

The system in the USA right now is - everybody gets exorbitant amounts of care, without economic justification - and we bill very arbitrarily some portions of society to pay for it.

/Bevin

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Our system is far from perfect, nor will it ever be.

Socialized medicine is not a safety net, at least not the way I define safety net.

A safety net is for those that find themselves in a crisis, or the handicapped that cannot care for themselves.

Not cradle to grave medical care that is mediorce at best and life threatening at worst.

My biggest objection to all of this is the constant critism and scorn for the US. With everything I have read and those I do know that participate in socialized medicine it would seem to me as much effort, critism, and scorn would be reserved for their own countries policies, or at the least considered a universal problem instead of the problems of the evil US.

Yet, never a word of critism is reserved for their own. I have yet to find evidence of this utopian medical care.

Bevin said,

(The system in the USA right now is - everybody gets exorbitant amounts of care, without economic justification - and we bill very arbitrarily some portions of society to pay for it)

The system of socialized medicine in other countries is now waiting lists, diagnostic tests put off for 3-4 months. All already paid for by the consumer. Explain the economic justification for this or doesn't it matter?

I would rather have our flawed system than all this "free care"

[Amelia]

I get samples all the time from my docs. All I have to do is sign for them. This is especially helpful when changing drug dosages.

[bonnie]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Amelia said:

I get samples all the time from my docs. All I have to do is sign for them. This is especially helpful when changing drug dosages.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Most of us do. According to my DR he dispenses hundred's of free samples a month.

He has given me as much as a three month supply at a time .

He jokingly says it is is reward for having to make time for so many drug salesmen, but that it is extremely helpful to those that may not otherwise be able to pay for a prescription.

Especially short term ones like antibiotic