posted August 02, 2007 06:04 PM            

When Commie Romania (the only commie regime to be thrown up against the wall and shot) forbid abortions (and went so far as to tax women for not giving the state more cattle, er, babies, and also testing women not pregnant on like a yearly basis to make sure they hadn't had an illegal abortion), their orphanages got very full (ironically, it was these kids that provided the power to the violent revolution that ended Communism there), the care was so bad that many of those orphans got infect with AIDS and other diseases as the commie medical procedures didn't include one needle per person, etc.

Natch, I think that has more to do with values than ideology. Had any of those commies in power actually cared, I'm sure it would be different. Likewise, Thailand, which has no socialized medicine but rather a free market all the way health care system also does good, but their values are very different from much of the rest of the world, and I understand Buddhist charity is amazing there and no doubt helps many people get health care they otherwise wouldn't. Btw, some Americans that can afford it go to Thailand for their health care.

As for me...I don't have a health care plan. I save a lot for emergencies, but I don't trust insurance companies to treat me honorably, at least until I'm well off enough to be able to hire a lawyer. I've been lucky so far. I've known people who have needed emergency medical treatment, or drugs, etc, but we've solicited donations (my roomie and I gave $40 once for a guy we didn't know that well, though that was to a friend of ours who was dating him), and that's also happened over the internet, too, using Paypal.

The weirdest incident I heard of was this guy who had like $50 thou in savings, but he needed an operation that was almost twice that. He had too much for a medical card. BUT he could have luxuries and still get it, so he used his savings to get a really hot sports car, got on the dole, had his operation, and then sold his car and put it back into savings.

I think it's the Beatniks who say, "Crazy, man, crazy." :-D

posted August 02, 2007 07:15 PM            

I asked you for the names of those who were denied life saving treatments for diseases or injuries.

Instead, you give me the propaganda, spin and outright lies from interest advocacy groups with axes to grind.

Knowing you acoustic, I thought you would at least rely on reports from the NY Times, Associated Press and Washington Post...sources which are believed by only 21% of Americans...or less to be purveyors of truth.

Hahaha, your post doesn't pass the giggle test even though watching you squirm, duck, bob and weave is amusing.

Now acoustic, I did ask you a question...which you studiously avoided answering. Let me repeat the question and perhaps this time you will penetrate the language and provide an answer. Notice acoustic, I didn't ask you why people immigrate to America. This is what I asked and within this question there is no suggestion of immigration to America.

posted August 02, 2007 07:38 PM            

Listen, you can call it propaganda all you like. Let the people decide is what I say. I know you hate the people and 'consensus' and all those dirty kind of words, but I'm ok with them.

You want to talk about questions being unanswered? How about this:

quote:

---

Jwhop, ever look at health statistics for our country versus countries with more socialistic systems in place?

---

and

quote:

---

Do people have a right to life or not?

---

You first, big fella. Surely you're up to the task of backing up your utter nonsense.

Regarding naming names of people who have been turned away... for one you could have read that article I posted. It started out with some names.
The bigger picture with this line of argument from you, though, is your attempt to subvert the conversation by throwing out a challenge that can't be easily answered. Want me to play at that game as well? Would you like me to ask similarly absurd questions that you can't possibly answer? It's not my game to run away from the argument. I don't need silly ploys and diversionary tactics. I've made my point, and I've supported my point. You, on the other hand, dream up cockamamy ways of subverting the issue whilst also trying to save face. It's quite transparent who has the useful information [me], and who's making excuses to get out tackling the issue [you].

posted August 02, 2007 09:29 PM              

What is so horrible about taking care of each other? What about that makes you cringe inside.

What would be so terrible about making sure that people can just go get a yearly checkup from a doctor/dentist/opthamologist and it would be something that our tax dollars pay for?

I mean you talk about the evils of socialism, and I don't get it at all. Do you like having paved roads, fire departments, police departments, public schools, state colleges, public libraries, Social Security, child labor laws, safe food/drug laws and the departments that ensure those things, medical/weapons research, and minimum wage laws? Those are the things I can think of off the top of my head, that we have in this country, that are “socialist” programs. Are you going to write your representatives on the city, county, state, and federal level and ask them to stop funding those things? Do you use any of those things? Did you receive any federal aid when you went through college? Would you have been able to go to college if you hadn't had those funds? That's socialism too. The above list would be successes of socialism to me.

quote:

---

Most American citizens who cannot afford health insurance or health care treatment are covered under Medicare or Medicaid acoustic. Perhaps it escaped you but Bush pushed and signed into law a Medicare prescription benefit as well. Or acoustic, they would be covered under one of those programs if they simply applied.

---

Unfortunately, this is untrue. Having just come off a 8 year stint of being uninsured, the only way I was EVER qualified for Medicaid was if I was pregnant. I was not about to get pregnant just so I could have health insurance for 9 months.

Have you ever been without health care? It's nice to talk about just go to the emergency room and the wait is never as long as it would be if you were living in a socialised medicine country. The emergency room is 3 times as expensive as going to a clinic. So most people who are uninsured don't go. The wait may be longer, but at least you have the option of going.

And when our youngest son broke his arm recently, we did have insurance. I thought about what I would have done if we hadn't had insurance, because they wanted us to come back weekly for checkups and x-rays to see how things were coming along. I really didn't know if we would have made any return visits to the doctor considering the surgery, and xrays, and ER, and ambulance bills have totaled around $2,500. This is not including any return visits, which have included xrays and the orthopedic doctor(who I am sure is SO cheap). I don't know, it's not like I wouldn't have wanted to go back, I just don't know if we could have justified the expense because people still need to eat. A parent should NEVER have to make that kind of decision. That makes me so sad because I think of all the parents who have to make those kinds of decisions every day. And it makes me angry. We can spend half of our discretionary budget on making things to kill people, but we can't afford to make sure that citizens can just go to the ER or have a regular checkup? People declare bankruptcy due to medical bills and you think there's not a problem with the health care system in this country? Guess you've never had to make those kind of sacrifices.

I read an article about a mother recently whose oldest son died of an infection from absessed tooth, because she had to buy medicine for her youngest daughter who had a medical condition, so she had to choose between them.

I hope you never do have to make hard decisions like that. Cause it sucks, it really does.

I don't know if you are familiar with a place in Tennessee called The Farm. It's a commune. It was started by a nice group of people, one of them is the foremost midwife in the country, called Ina May Gaskin. She and her family, and some others, bought some land, put up houses and they all work together for the common good of all. They share resources and time, money, etc. This to me would be a success of communism.

Peace.
GG

posted August 02, 2007 10:11 PM            

Federal entities designed to facilitate public safety:

* Food & Drug Administration
* Center for Disease Control
* Department of Defense
* Department of Homeland Security
* Federal Emergency Management Agency
* Social Security
* MediCare
* Medicaid

Common state & local entities all designed to facilitate public safety:

* Police
* Fire Department
* Medicaid
* Prison system

All of these things on my list give me one impression:

Every single American life is important to preserve.

If a country can imagine having all of these things, then surely it can imagine having accessible healthcare.

I agree with Goatgirl as well about people who don't have insurance. I think a lot of people, probably most, who don't have any health coverage aren't quick to go to the doctor.

posted August 02, 2007 10:30 PM            

Now acoustic, no more bloviating. Get him ...he wasn't aware Canadians cross the border to get health care in the US...because acoustic, the waiting lines in Canada are long and people die while waiting, or suffer long waits with injuries which would be treated the next day in the United States. Your hero, Commander Korruption would likely be dead if he was a Canadian citizen depending on the socialized medical services of Canada.

LINDSAY McCREITH: “We have universal health coverage (in Canada). But it failed me when I needed it the most.”
Universal health care: Is it worth the long waits?
Push is on for private insurance in Canada as residents come to the U.S. for timely treatment
By Henry L. Davis - News Medical Reporter
Updated: 07/29/07 10:20 AM

Harry Scull Jr./Buffalo News
Canadian Lindsay McCreith came to Buffalo for an MRI after being told he would have to wait over four months for one at home.

After battling brain cancer, Lindsay McCreith is ready for his next fight: He’s taking on the Canadian health care system.

His case has potential repercussions on both sides of the border as pressure grows for health reform.

It started when McCreith, a resident of Newmarket, north of Toronto, suffered a seizure last year. He was told in Canada he would have to wait more than four months for an MRI to rule out a malignant tumor.

Rather than wait, McCreith, 66, quickly arranged a trip to Buffalo for a scan. The MRI confirmed his worst fears — a cancerous growth that a Buffalo neurosurgeon removed a few weeks later.

“If I had been patient, I’d probably be disabled or dead today,” McCreith said.

Now, McCreith is suing the Ontario government in a closely watched constitutional challenge that could reshape universal health coverage in the province by striking down the prohibition against patients buying private insurance.

On this side of the border, advocates of universal health insurance champion Canada’s popular public program as a fairer system that the United States should emulate, as seen in Michael Moore film, “Sicko.” Yet critics see the long waits for some services in Canada — mainly for non-emergency surgery — as an argument against an increased role for government in health care.

In Canada, McCreith’s story reflects a debate, intensified by the long waiting times, between those who want more for-profit, private care and those who fear the rise of two-tier medicine that undermines the public system.

McCreith offers little doubt about where he stands. “We have universal health coverage,” he said. “But it failed me when I needed it the most.”

McCreith, a retired auto body shop owner, experienced seizures on Jan. 2, 2006, and was diagnosed with a benign tumor based on a CT scan. A physician at a Canadian hospital declined to order an MRI to rule out a malignancy. McCreith’s family doctor agreed to request the more-definitive scan, but McCreith was told he would have to wait over four months for the appointment.

Choosing not to wait

Concerned that the tumor could progress, McCreith on Feb. 2 arranged through Timely Medical Alternatives Inc., a Vancouver, B.C., company that helps patients obtain services outside of Canada’s public health care system, to get an MRI in Buffalo...**note, that's Buffalo NY... the next day. The scan suggested the tumor was malignant, although slow-growing.

A neurologist then referred McCreith to a Canadian neurosurgeon for consideration of a biopsy, which is the only way doctors could definitively determine just how dangerous the tumor was.

This time, the Canadian health system told him the first available appointment for a biopsy was May 9. McCreith viewed his situation with more urgency, especially with the fresh memory of a good friend who died last year while waiting for heart surgery.

So in early March, he stepped outside the Canadian system again and got a biopsy at Millard Fillmore Hospital. During the procedure, the surgeon identified and immediately removed a brain tumor known as a low-grade astrocytoma.

Dr. Elad Levy, the Buffalo neurosurgeon who cared for McCreith, declined to comment specifically on the case, but said that earlier detection and treatment can increase chances of survival and quality of a patient’s life.

McCreith said he has spent $45,000, including $28,000 to remove the tumor, for care in the United States that Ontario’s Health Insurance Plan refuses to reimburse because he failed to seek pre-approval.

“It can take months to get pre-approval, and why should I need it anyway?” McCreith said.

In Canada, the provinces and federal government pay about 70 percent of medical costs, including most hospital and physician care. Patients and private insurance companies pay the remaining 30 percent for such expenses as prescription drugs, and dental and vision care.

Canada bans private insurance for essential health needs, but it is not a socialized system. Doctors and hospitals are private.

The Canadian system

The Canadian system is unofficially called Medicare, the same name as the U.S. government health plan for seniors, but it’s actually 10 separate provincial programs regulated by the federal government.

The social program, known for its fairness and value, remains intricately woven into the fabric of Canadian society.

In 2005, health care spending per capita in Canada was $3,326, nearly half of what the United States spends. Yet Canada fares as well as or better than the United States on comparisons such as life expectancy and infant mortality.

But like any national health system, Canada’s has shortcomings that have come under attack, especially long waiting times and related shortages of physicians and high-tech devices like MRIs.

For instance, patients in Ontario wait an average of 22 weeks for cataract surgery and 34 weeks for a hip replacement, according to statistics from the Ontario Ministry of Health.

“Canada is not a medical utopia, as some would have you believe, or a disaster, as others claim,” said Jack Tu, a senior scientist at the Toronto-based Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences and co-author of a recent study on waiting times.

“Most people get care in a reasonable amount of time. What you hear about are the horror stories,” said Tu, whose study in the journal Health Affairs showed that Canada is not doing as good a job of reducing waiting times as other countries with universal coverage.

Those horror stories are turning into court cases.

In 2005, a legal challenge similar to McCreith’s paved the way for private insurance in Quebec.

The lawsuit by Dr. Jacques Chaoulli and Georges Zeliotis, a Montreal man who waited a year for a hip replacement, led to a landmark but divided decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. The gist of the ruling is that there must be reasonable waiting times for patients without finances to get care elsewhere if the government insists on making patients stay within a single-payer system.

The case for change

McCreith’s case will test that decision in Ontario by claiming that the province’s ban on private health insurance and private billing by physicians infringed on his constitutional right to life, liberty and security.

“In Canada, we have a monopoly health system, and you don’t have the right to seek alternatives. That can be a huge financial and emotional burden for patients,” said Avril Allen, McCreith’s attorney.

A recent statement from the Canadian Constitution Foundation, which is helping to sponsor the lawsuit, said that it was intolerable that residents could buy medical insurance for their pets but not for themselves.

“The question is this: Should Canadians have to stay on waiting lists against their will?” Allen said.

Some people say the cases will undo Canada’s cherished system of providing health insurance to everyone, a turn of events desired by proponents of privatization.

Others say they will force the government — and taxpayers — to invest more money to fill in the gaps in the health system.

“If we give up single-payer and allow private care, our health costs will go up and patients in the public system will wait even longer,” said Raisa Deber, a health policy expert at the University of Toronto.

She said the United States also rations care but in a less-equitable way: There are 44 million uninsured people who lack access to specialists, and others with insurance who face mounting payments to get care.

In 2004, Canada set up a 10-year, $5.5 billion plan to establish benchmarks and reduce waiting times in such key areas as cancer care, heart procedures and diagnostic imaging. The effort, however, is seemingly at a standstill. The provinces, for instance, have not created waiting time guarantees or common ways to measure waiting times.

“The challenge in Canada is to get anything done on a national level,” Tu said.

For McCreith, whose case could go to trial next month, the debate boils down to what he knows from experience.

“I was in the auto body shop business,” he said. “If I gave you an appointment four months away, you would go somewhere else. Why should health care be any different?”

hdavis@buffnews.com
http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/129344.html

To answer your question acoustic...which I already answered by inference...Yes, people have a right to life. That's the reason life saving treatment is not denied in the United States...regardless of ones ability to pay.

Your sources listed a couple of people acoustic..none of whom had life threatening issues and one who was treated anyway and then promptly discharged from the hospital...about which he was whining.

posted August 02, 2007 11:37 PM            

quote:

---

Hahaha, of course I ask tough questions acoustic; questions you have difficulty answering. But, any fair minded person would be forced to agree my questions go directly to the point at issue. If you can't answer those, you're out of the loop, you're uninformed, misinformed or you're bloviating.

---

Jwhop, that's ridiculous. They weren't "tough" questions. They were exactly as I defined them: an excuse for you to get out of debate while trying to save face. Any "fair-minded" person would see that you completely avoided my first post in total:

* You didn't tackle statistics between our health system versus other industrialized nations, except to ask me to provide the statistics to you
* You didn't address that we have all these government agencies whose sole purpose is keep the citizenry safe
* You didn't address my pointing out to you that your Communism/Socialism argument was bunk
* You didn't address the irony (or, if you prefer, hypocrisy [I know you prefer that term]) of the Right being Pro-Life when it comes to abortion, but anti-life when it comes to any sort of socialized health care

You didn't touch ANY of this.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, let's tackle Canada. Your whole argument is Canada? Do I have that right?

Let me just nix that argument outright.

Who says that a version of universal healthcare has to match Canada's?

There. Done. How do you like them apples?

posted August 03, 2007 08:38 AM            

I have the right to give to any person or charity I want. But do I have the right to go up to you or my neighbors, point my gun at them, and tell them to hand over a certain amount of money or I shoot them, or burn down their home, because I want to give it to a really awesome artist that's about to be evicted? Or would it be any different than if I contributed $40 to a guy to see the dentist to going out and taking $40 from a passerby under threat of force and give THAT to the one needing it? Personally, I think that robbing others would be wrong & unethical, even if I was true about where the money went (unlike the government where most of it goes to unethical things, if not outright stolen). And by extension, it would be wrong for me to support getting agents of the state to do the very same thing "in my name."

posted August 03, 2007 11:39 AM            

I tend to think about the root context of an idea when talking about it. Early Socialists wanted what? They wanted a classless society, which to me translates to the desire for greater equality. Any instance of the more fortunate sharing with the less fortunate, to me, shows a kind of voluntary Socialism.

posted August 03, 2007 12:55 PM            

Things like these are awesome, IMO. Examples of things I like that I think fits your description of voluntary socialism:

The really, really free market (aka, "gift economy"):
http://www.crimethinc.com/features/13.html

And there's the interesting barter of the Rainbow Gatherings:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/27927.html

posted August 14, 2007 09:50 AM            

In fact, almost all the duties of government listed are state responsibilities..constitutionally.

So, you can read the US Constitution from beginning to end and you will find no authority to exercise federal contol or legislate in the areas of health care or doctors or medicare or education...or social security and I defy you to do so.

You will find...if you bothered to look...you would find the 10th Amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If the federal authority is NOT found in the Constitution the federal government was not to attempt to gain jurisdiction over the subject matter...reserving that jurisdiction to the States..or to the people's discretion to exercise.

Since social security was brought up, it deserves some attention.

Social Security is a scam and always was..from it's inception. There are no numbered accounts with money deposited awaiting your retirement. All social security deposits...from you and your employer go into the general revenue fund and are spent for everything under the sun. Soon, there will not be enough people paying into the system to keep the Ponzi scheme going.

In 1935, the first year of social security deductions, the age at which payments under the social security law would begin was 65.

The life expectancy in 1935 was 59 years for men and 61 years for women. You were to die before the government had to pay out a cent. In the meantime, the federal government had your money and the money of your employer and got to keep it all.

Social security was and is a giant tax scheme based on the Ponzi principle. If a citizen set up such a system, they would be prosecuted and put in prison.

Hello, I didn't just talk about the Canadian health care system. I also talked about Cuba..the system the bonehead Michael Moore idolizes.

But, in Europe socialized health care is an abject failure as well...with long waits for even basic services and longer waits for actual treatment. Now, they're refusing to treat some illnesses, injuries and diseases...it's the patients fault they're in this fix you see. Not to mention, the various systems are going broke.

posted August 14, 2007 02:48 PM            

In supporting M. Moore I support the INDIVIDUAL to be aware, to be responsible, to be self-sufficient, in supporting M Moore he brings to light just another inavoidable flaw in America that you and I had better be aware of because it is a mattter of life and death.

It is easy to quote statistics, it is easy to quote public examples but when it hits home that is when reality strikes.

I am right smack dab in the middle of the American healthcare system. I am a RN and see so many messed up cases of American healtcare gone bad...

A 500 lb woman comes to out hospital seeking help, she can not breathe due to her weight, her heart is in failure, she is in her mid 50's.........and you and I pay for her healthcare because she is a Mexican national who holds a greencard which provides her with medicade/medicare. She ends up being admitted to another hospital for bariatric treatment, you and I pay for her to have a gastric bypass so she can loose weight....

An elderly man walks miles accross the Mexican desert to get to his family in a border town who can transport him to the US for healthcare...he is in his 70's. By the time he reaches us, his diabetic process has become so bad that the wounds he encountered while walking around Mexico would not heal, he became horribly infected, systemically and of course the million dollar work up was preformed on an illegal alien who arrested and died shorlty after.

San Antonio where I reside has the only level III trauma center between Dallas and Mexico city, so if you are a Mexican resident and get in a god-awful wreck in Mexico and San Antonio is the closest trauma center, you come here....and WE pay for it...yup you and me!

O, and the illegal aliens who hop trains and get their limbs sawed off when they fall off...or are pushed out of their place in competition, yes, them too, we, American taxpayers pay for.

What really ****** me off is that I, as a healthcare provider working for a "faith-based" hospital have crappy insurance provided by the hospiital. I need to see 2 specialists now but can not due to elevated deductables and percentages. And this is the hospital's own insurance provider! They do not even have to hire someone to provide!!!

I look at my property taxes and almost 1/3 goes to the local University healthsystem...great, good, provide for the community....however why in the world do you need to pay a surgeon, a physicians assistant, AND a nurse practitioner to round on the patient atleast twice day and we are not a teaching hospital perse, they just bring their patients to us, a pirvate non for profit hoppital when the comminity one has no space. So, I am giving my county in which I reside way too much money to pay these particular individuals to round way more frequently than need be (hell this is the day and age of telephones!!!)

I am angered the US govennment spends so much money on this and that and leaves it's middle class citizens left alone to fend for themselves...

I could go on and on. I could site examples of how medicare fails elders over and over, but what good will it do me????

None...

posted August 14, 2007 03:03 PM            

I'm not saying you do, but many people confuse healthcare delivery with health insurance.

The health care system in the United States was just fine until the federal government got involved. Whenever the government...with the deepest pockets in the world gets involved in any private sector enterprise prices skyrocket.

posted August 14, 2007 04:22 PM            

And yes, illegal aliens are a big problem with healthcare in the US. It just so happens that I live in an area of the US that is saturated with illegals...they come here to seek healthcare, they "coyote" themselves accross the boarder to have their children here so as to recieve US benefits...

And I will not even go there about my aged grandparents, a 90 yr old female with Alzheimer's and a wonderful 84 yr old WWII Vet who takes care of her, who live in the rural lands of Indiana and do you think the government does anything to help an elderly couple who's patriarch risked his life for his country! Nope!!!---except ofcourse the monitary veteran and elderly benefits our wonderful country awards them.

The US would rather help out people who do not pay taxes, who do not reside here leagally than their own!

The US is such an over ego-inflated country it is gross....

I KNOW there is no resolve in my lifetime anyway...

I just want people to know what they are up against before a crisis happens to themselves or their loved ones!

posted February 23, 2008 08:06 PM            

Am I to understand correctly that Moore paints Cuba in a really good light?

My understanding, based on those who have been there was that their hospitals often didn't even have rubbing alcohol and aspirin. An acquaintance from Argentina that visited Cuba as a tourist said she enjoyed her trip though she was bothered by the local citizens begging for food AND MEDICINE (even aspirin) outside her hotel.

This struck me as believable as Russian expats that escaped Soviet health care reported very similar conditions (not that it seems they've improved much since the collapse of communism), and that there was a thriving black market for medicine and treatment. And Communist Romania is infamous today for many reasons but especially for their health care system, and even China (which IMO is a pretty decent place, and I say that as someone very much against Communism) has had similar scandals involving shoddy medical treatment (including using dirty needles on orphans and the like). So this portrayal of Cuba strikes me as likely.

posted February 23, 2008 10:10 PM            

So, they went to a hospital. The Americans had to provide their name and date of birth, and that was it. They were all treated for free to complete health care. One of them got an MRI even. One of the women got her drug load reduced to 5 medicines versus the 9 she was taking previously. One of the 9/11 rescue workers with respiratory troubles was able to get the inhalers she needs for just $.35 each (not in the hospital, but in a local pharmacy).

If you want to learn more about Cuba's healthcare, this might be a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Cuba

posted February 23, 2008 11:29 PM              

here are some comparisons..

my sister had a normal delivery in a local Redmond hospital. all expenses covered by employee benefits since my brother in law works for Microsoft.
they checked in at 10 A.M. , had the baby by 3 P.M., stayed the night and were out the next day.

in 2001 this bill worked out to Rs. 400000.
i dont know the currency rates for that year so i cant translate it to dollars exactly , but if i pick the average rate of a dollar to 45 rupees, it comes to approx 8900 dollars.

whoa
now for the comparisons

cost of having a baby , in a top notch private Indian hospital , top of the line amenities, natural delivery followed by a 2 day hospital stay

Rs. 10000, 250 dollars

cost of having a baby , in India in a government hospital,
irrespective of Caste, Religion, Employer or insurance coverage ,
natural delivery , irrespective of number of days spent in the hospital , with basic necessary amenities

Rs. ZERO.

the Indian government has its own healthcare facilities that provide free treatment , for any disease , to all citizens, no questions asked about employer or insurance coverage.
i have had personal experience of such health facilities in Mumbai and other big metros as well as towns that have a population of less than 500000, and fall in tier 2 category.

i cannot say for sure, in the absence of personal experience about smaller towns and villages where most of our population lives.

but since all medical students are required to work at such govt. hospitals for atleast 5 years before they can start their own practice , i do know medical students who have served in remote villages.

not that they r happy about being shipped off to impoverished rural areas, but becoz its compulsory , their accounts of the facilities are reliable.except for cancer or Aids or the like, all major and minor diseases all treated by the govt. facilities, free of charge.but if the hopital pharmacy does not have the medication u need, u have to procure it on ur own .

That is the ONLY expense u pay.

in Maharashtra, the state of which Mumbai is capital , there are Kaamdar hospitals.
Kaamdaar implies any blue collar worker employed in any industry.
all such low or minimum wage workers have ID cards, that are to be shown at these hospitals to get the treatment they WANT, not NEED .these cards extend to their parents, spouse, children and any other dependents.

such hospitals exist in ADDITION to the other free Govt. health facilities.
that is not to say everyone queues up outside a free govt facility.
the upper middle class and sometimes the middle class, due to seriousness of the disease or lack of faith in free healthcare, usually end up at a private doctors clinic or a private hospital.
but those who cant afford the doctors fees , go to see the ones in a govt hospital, who are remunerated by the Govt.
the treatment prescribed to such patients is decided by the doctor , on the basis of what the patient wants and needs,
not what the Doctor or the patients Employer or the patients Insurance company , THINK is NECESSARY .
the tests conducted are also whatever the doctor feels ,he needs to arrive at a diagnosis, not what the patients Employer or HMO approve of.

of late there have been a lot of protests by the doctors who are employed by the Govt, for pay raises and the like.
sure if u comapare them to those who r making a ton thru lucrative private practices , it looks unfair.

universal healthcare is a minefiled.
until a few years ago i assumed the US has universal healthcare since i knew UK did.
and i knew UK was a tiny island compared to the superpower that loans millions of dollars to our countrys development and poverty improvement programmes.
our universal healthcare however does have the shadow of not being as good as a personal treatment procured at inflated rates.

not that i know anyone who DIED as a result of delayed or denied treatment, or because their HMO sucked their lives outta them.
i doubt how long it will last though.

its not like we dont have a Nixon, who can sell the health of the masses to the HMO's.
we have hundreds of them, it is the fear of falling from power that is keeping them in check i guess.