Friday, February 12, 2010

Is John McCain the poster child for how well universal health care could work







Is John McCain the poster child for how well universal health care could work?
Think about. McCain's father was Navy, as well as McCain having served in the military and the Senate. This means that he has been insured by the federal government his entire life. He is 71 years and undertaking the grueling task of running for President and handling it well.
Elections - 7 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
lol I don't think many young peolple will need health care when they're lying dead in Iraq : P but... sigh* war gets votes amongst the ignorant.
2 :
McCain is too old, his party hates him and he left his wife who is confined to a wheelchair for a younger woman. A wife, who stole money from charities to support her drug habit. I wouldn't want McCain representing my dog in a dog show. However your point is valid, he has benefited from free health insurance almost his entire life. However I'm sure he has BCBS tucked somewhere in his wallet
3 :
That is a very solid, relevant point. I think we all should get "government jobs" don't you? Let's see how long it takes them to diss you. Uh - you do realize that the miniscule percentage of diehards still supporting the war and George W. Bush are, indeed, those associated with the military in some way, or part of the Defense Industry? Gotta know which side your bread is buttered on, you know.
4 :
I agree.
5 :
Health insurance obtained by being a member of the service is not exactly 'free'. If you think it is, feel free to enlist and obtain it.
6 :
Yes, I do believe he is the poster child for how well universal health care could work. But, is he on the "Before" poster or the "After" poster? I'd like to know before I consider universal health care......
7 :
There is no connection between McCain's health and UHC. You also are not only looking at one individual, but you're not looking at the impact of UHC on society. It can't be done and shouldn't be done for many reasons. First sensible plan, then a few reasons why UHC is a no-go. I want QUALITY, ACCESSIBLE, AFFORDABLE health care for all. That means preventative care (physical with follow up). Real medication (no Medicare "donut holes" the really ill are ripped off again.) No bogus ridiculously low "caps" on needed medical procedures. No abuse of the ER. No paying for the silly with the sniffles to go to the doc for free. No more bankruptcies over medical bills. I want THIS plan that ends abuse of the taxpayer, takes the burden off employers, provides price transparency, and ends the rip-off of the US taxpayer at the hands of greedy insurance CEOs (which has been repeatedly documented). http://www.booklocker.com/books/3068.html Read the PDF, not the blurb, for the bulk of the plan. Book is searchable on Amazon.com Cassandra Nathan's Save America, Save the World "California Senate Panel Rejects Health Coverage Proposal JESSE MCKINLEY AND KEVIN SACK SAN FRANCISCO — In a blow to universal health care coverage in California and possibly to its prospects nationwide, a State Senate committee on Monday rejected a sweeping plan by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that would have offered insurance to millions of uninsured residents. The Senate Health Committee defeated the plan 7 to 1, with three abstentions, as Democrats and Republicans alike said they found it too nebulous and potentially too costly for a state facing a $14.5 billion deficit. “This bill is not only not perfect, it is flawed,” said State Senator Sheila James Kuehl, Democrat of Los Angeles and chairwoman of the committee, who voted against it. ... But last Wednesday, as the California Senate committee heard testimony on the bill, Massachusetts announced that spending on its health care plan would increase by $400 million in 2008, a cost expected to be borne largely by taxpayers. Shortly after the vote, Assemblyman Michael N. Villines of Fresno, the chamber’s Republican leader, praised it as a rejection of “a massive government-run health care scheme.” On the Democratic side, there were concerns about the so-called “individual mandate,” which would have required all Californians to carry and pay for insurance, except those in economic hardship...." http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080129/ZNYT02/801290745 Last modified: January 29. 2008 5:03AM Besides the fact that CA couldn't make it work, let's note that Romney's bogus "plan" is jacking up MA health care costs $400 million and there are just 6.5 million folks in MA. Canadian doc who studies world health systems, etc. and lives in US now: ""...Another sign of transformation: Canadian doctors, long silent on the health-care system’s problems, are starting to speak up. Last August, they voted Brian Day president of their national association. A former socialist who counts Fidel Castro as a personal acquaintance, Day has nevertheless become perhaps the most vocal critic of Canadian public health care, having opened his own private surgery center as a remedy for long waiting lists and then challenged the government to shut him down. “This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week,” he fumed to the New York Times, “and in which humans can wait two to three years.” And now even Canadian governments are looking to the private sector to shrink the waiting lists. Day’s clinic, for instance, handles workers’-compensation cases for employees of both public and private corporations. In British Columbia, private clinics perform roughly 80 percent of government-funded diagnostic testing. In Ontario, where fealty to socialized medicine has always been strong, the government recently hired a private firm to staff a rural hospital’s emergency room. This privatizing trend is reaching Europe, too. Britain’s government-run health care dates back to the 1940s. Yet the Labour Party—which originally created the National Health Service and used to bristle at the suggestion of private medicine, dismissing it as “Americanization”—now openly favors privatization. Sir William Wells, a senior British health official, recently said: “The big trouble with a state monopoly is that it builds in massive inefficiencies and inward-looking culture.” Last year, the private sector provided about 5 percent of Britain’s nonemergency procedures; Labour aims to triple that percentage by 2008. The Labour government also works to voucherize certain surgeries, offering patients a choice of four providers, at least one private. And in a recent move, the government will contract out some primary care services, perhaps to American firms such as UnitedHealth Group and Kaiser Permanente. Sweden’s government, after the completion of the latest round of privatizations, will be contracting out some 80 percent of Stockholm’s primary care and 40 percent of its total health services, including one of the city’s largest hospitals. Since the fall of Communism, Slovakia has looked to liberalize its state-run system, introducing co-payments and privatizations. And modest market reforms have begun in Germany: increasing co-pays, enhancing insurance competition, and turning state enterprises over to the private sector (within a decade, only a minority of German hospitals will remain under state control). It’s important to note that change in these countries is slow and gradual—market reforms remain controversial. But if the United States was once the exception for viewing a vibrant private sector in health care as essential, it is so no longer." http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html





Read more discussions :
Posted by Child Health at 7:41 PM