It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California Leaders Focus on Universal Health Care

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   
I hate to say it, because I think capitilism is the best thing going, but I think pharm companies, doctors, and insurance companies are bringing this on themselves. If they continue with the greed that is driving healthcare into the stratosphere, the public will respond with socialized healthcare. I see it as almost inevitable.

Unfortunately, I'm sure the quality of drugs and healthcare will go down the tube. Tough situation.




posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 07:54 PM
link   
We have the NHS in the UK and all things considered, it is pretty damn good. We have the same equipment and drugs you guys do, we just might have to wait a few weeks to get seen, rather than tommorrow.

We do also, on top of the NHS, tend to get Private Helath through our employers.

So we get best of both worlds.

We can wait and go NHS (and claim back cash off Private for using the NHS, which is cool!) or use the Private immediately and get seen straight away.



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

We can wait and go NHS (and claim back cash off Private for using the NHS, which is cool!) or use the Private immediately and get seen straight away.


How does that work? I am unclear what you mean. It sounds as if you get paid for seeing NHS doctors. Or is it a tax deduction?



posted on Dec, 28 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by stumason

We can wait and go NHS (and claim back cash off Private for using the NHS, which is cool!) or use the Private immediately and get seen straight away.


How does that work? I am unclear what you mean. It sounds as if you get paid for seeing NHS doctors. Or is it a tax deduction?


On my Private Health from work, for every night I spend in an NHS hospital, I get "cash back" of £150/night. This is a "reward" for not using the Private Hospitals, which obviously cost more than £150. The same works for lesser treaments, but you get less "cash back".

The only drawback is the wait time.

But it is rather useful if you go to casualty (A&E) as you essentially pick up £150 for being hurt and Private hospitals do not have A&E facilities, so you don't have a choice anyway!



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   
This may sound like a totally uninformed question, but what are the current preventative measures against avian flu? A vaccination shot?

If that is the leading disease they are trying to prevent, is it good enough reason to change the entire health care system?



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
This may sound like a totally uninformed question, but what are the current preventative measures against avian flu? A vaccination shot?




There aren't any, and won't be until the pandemic strain appears. After which time it will take months to produce enough vaccine for the world - by which time, it will be too late to do much.

BUT - there are several lines of research looking to develop a "universal" flu vaccine. Some look sort of promising.





If that is the leading disease they are trying to prevent,




Yes and no. It is expected that the flu will be a key component of a new virulent hybrid virus that will mix things like anthrax, rabies, West Nile, maybe a pinch of dengue fever, and gawd knows what.

More info here: The Perfect Microbial Storm.




is it good enough reason to change the entire health care system?



Most people in power don't think so - in fact, they don't think the microbial dangers industry creates are enough reason to change anything.






posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Universal health care sounds so utopian, doesn't it? Kind of like free bubble-up or rainbow stew. As a healthcare provider for the past 26 years, I have seen a lot of changes in the health care system: DRG's, Medicare changes, Hillary Clinton. Free (or greatly discounted) healthcare will not and can not work for oooohhhh so many reasons. Let me count the ways:
1) critical nursing shortage. where are all those health care workers taking care of all those extra people going to come from?
2) a recognized epidemic of obesity in this country. obesity leads to so many health problems all by itself that in 26 years of bedside care, i have NEVER seen an old fat person. old smokers, yes, but no elderly obese. 3) failing insurance companies. that will undoubtedly increase as more people drain the funds pool.
4) rising median age. with all the regular aging health issues, the baby boomers are (and will continue to) tax the overburdened system. without help from non-nationals and non-taxpayers the "free" system will collapse in 6 months, tops.
5) the AIDS epidemic. More young people are being removed from the work force (and taxpayer status) due to their tragic illness which can be quite prolonged and astronomically costly to treat even one person.
6) personal value system. many people are lonely, crazy, hypochondriac and/or stupid beyond endurance. They come into the ER because there's nothing good on TV or they're bored, etc. They still have to be seen by a Dr. and all that that entails. Making it easy and desirable for them to continue to needlessly suck up resources/time/taxpayer dollars will have me applying for truck driving school or underwater basket weaving-anything but nursing.
7) there are scores of other reasons not taken into consideration by people who don't have to deal with the system. Allowing access to alternative health choices (herbs, chiropractors,etc.) would make much more sense. People still pay for their healthcare like they do for any commodity but they have to take personal responsibility and make informed choices. I have taken care of 800 pound smokers who can't work but are in the hospital/clinic/ER all the time because medicare/medicaid is picking up the tab and HAS TO take care of them. They refuse diet and exercise because, if they need your services, you HAVE TO take care of them. I've seen people in renal failure eating a grocery sack full of chips, pretzels, etc. saying they'll just spend an extra hour on dialysis (WHILE they're being dialyzed!) rather than change their lifestyle because, hey! they ain't paying for it.
I'll step off my soap box now because I can feel my blood pressure rising and I can't afford any healthcare if I keel over.



posted on Dec, 29 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   
btw, check out www.cqs.com/influenza.htm for how to deal with the avian flu.



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave

btw, check out www.cqs.com/influenza.htm for how to deal with the avian flu.


Great link whitewave. Thanks.


Although I am the queen of natural therapy, I do have questions about the traditional idea of building the immune system for this flu.

Basically, this flu takes its worst toll on young, healthy people with strong immune systems. ...It creates a "cytokine storm," and seems to use the immune system to spread through the body. So the stronger and more efficient the immune system, the more 'efficient' the infection - and the more likely it is to be fatal.

Also, this flu replicates VERY quickly - but minimal exposure is probably the way to go. ...Meaning, expose yourself a tiny bit, and let your body build defenses without being overwhelmed.





posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Taken from original news source:



Democratic Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez unveiled his plan to extend health care coverage to uninsured children by requiring employers to pay for insurance, or to have them pay a fee to the state.

Firms with fewer than two employees or with an annual payroll of $100,000 or less and small businesses open for less than three years would be excluded.


Pretty much every single business in Calif will be required to partake in this proposed plan. Even a small mom and pop store has a payroll of $100,000.

If I were a business owner I would be pretty distressed that the state expects me to provide health care to uninsured children when I may not be able to provide the same insurance coverage for my own employees. Maybe if they go after larger, more profitable businesses ... but even then is it fair for any business to be taxxed to support illegal residents?

Living in California I know that there are several clinics around most communities that are open 2 or 3 times a week where low income residents can go to get health care regardless of their legal status. They are non-profits and the doctors donate their time. They always look crowded and I'm sure they're a pain to use but at least they are available.

Of course there is no mention of how much this plan would cost small businesses. Whether it's a flat rate based on # of employees, payroll costs or profit. Until they say how much it is going to cost the business my verdict is out on this proposal.



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Here's a thought. What one stroke of the pen could fix all the current problems with health care?
Answer: let the people die.
Not an option most people want, I agree, but when it comes to legislation, the people are usually not given many options. Lawmakers just make it happen.
Survival of the fittest. Or more appropriately: survival of the most ruthless. If thousands die off in a "microbial storm", chances are that the survivors will be the ones that don't need dialysis, insulin, azt, lipitor, etc. If only the healthy survive healthcare/insurance companies will be geared more towards preventative measures and emergency medicine.
The intensive care units used to be solely for intensive care of something that was curable/fixable. Now they're filled up with people who should be on hospice care. They are in the end stage of their terminal illnesses and no magic wand will ever fix them.
Mark my words, we will have legislation that approximates the idea of "let them die". Already there has been legislation allowing taking people off ventilators whether they were ready to breathe on their own or not. (We used to have to get a court order). There is a law in the works that basically says that if your glascow coma scale rating (a neurological assessment) is 3 (totally unresponsive coma) when you get brought into the hospital that you don't get to be admitted. In other words, "if you're hopeless, we're not taking you."
Because of insulin, diabetics now live long enough to breed and pass on their genetic traits so we have more diabetics that require heart/kidney/foot and vision care, frequent lab tests, equipment (syringes, test strips, etc.) They frequently require nursing assistance with their health care needs. And that's just the diabetics.
Many hospitals have closed down their burn wards. It's a money loser. A burn victim can require hospitalization for up to 2 years and that's not counting the multiple surgeries.
Cancer wards are doing well financially because people will sell everything they own, borrow from friends/family, go into debt to stay alive one more day. (not true of burn victims).
Healthcare is truly in a crisis but it is still available. Make it "free" and it will disappear. Then we'll all have equal access and rights to the same amount of nothing.



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave

Survival of the fittest. Or more appropriately: survival of the most ruthless.




EDIT: Survival of the fittest. Or more accurately: survival of the most ruthless.





If thousands die off in a "microbial storm", chances are that the survivors will be the ones that don't need dialysis, insulin, azt, lipitor, etc.




Apparently not. The most "fit" are most likely to die. The survivors likely will have non-fatal chronic long term effects.





If only the healthy survive healthcare/insurance companies will be geared more towards preventative measures and emergency medicine.




Diseases are being created by agricultural and other industries. If anyone was interested in prevention they'de be acting already on common scientific knowledge.





The intensive care units ...'re filled up with people who should be on hospice care. They are in the end stage of their terminal illnesses and no magic wand will ever fix them.




Dying from diseases we created - by pumping factory raised animals full of drugs, tinkering with proteins, mucking with nano-bio-tech.




Mark my words, we will have legislation that approximates the idea of "let them die". Already there has been legislation allowing taking people off ventilators whether they were ready to breathe on their own or not. (We used to have to get a court order).




Oh yeah. Back to eugenics, repackaged as genetics.




Because of insulin, diabetics now live long enough to breed and pass on their genetic traits so we have more diabetics that require heart/kidney/foot and vision care, frequent lab tests, equipment (syringes, test strips, etc.)




The dramatically increased rates of diabetes cannot be explained by inheritance. The so-called "genetic" basis of diabetes results from mutations.

The evidence clearly shows that diabetes-causing mutations result from an interplay between infectious factors and pollution (indluding food contaminated with synthetic chemicals).




Healthcare is truly in a crisis but it is still available. Make it "free" and it will disappear. Then we'll all have equal access and rights to the same amount of nothing.



The pharmaceutical, agricultural and medical industries create far more disease than they cure.

If we all had equal access to clean air and water, and uncontaminated food - we wouldn't need "free" access to "health" care.


.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Thank you for correcting my inaccurate use of words, soficrow.

Your statement about people with healthy immune systems being more likely to die sounds like rubbish to me. Do you have any links, sources, examples in nature, precedents in history to back up that claim? Besides, why would the evil pharmaceutical/medical/agricultural dealers of death want to create a disease that kills off the healthy and leaves the less than healthy? Where's the benefit to that?

I agree that many health problems are related to environmental stressors but those of us interested in prevention ARE acting on scientific knowledge.

Eating and smoking yourself to death is not the fault of "mucking with nano bio-tech", agriculture or pharmaceutical industries. Drunk driving accidents, stabbings, shootings, et al are not Big Brother's fault.

You want a society that runs on electricity, refrigeration, metallurgy, terabytes? There's going to be some price to pay in health.

I didn't say I was in favor of eugenics. I just intimated that it was coming.

What evidence/sources do you have for your generalized comment about diabetes and genetics? I only studied it in college where I got my degree in health sciences so I may not be up on the latest info.

Industry creates more diseases than it cures? You mean like the industry that wiped smallpox off the face of the earth (except for those few vials kept in biohazard containment)? Or the industry that worked tirelessly to make tetanus, diptheria, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, pneumonia, influenza, etc. almost unheard of or at least greatly reduced? We are in the relatively early stages of our technological advancement. We have made mistakes. Costly mistakes. And costly to fix. People depend on industries to keep them able to complain about their lifestyle which rivals that of a king 200 years ago. Hard to fix them while still operating and impossible to shut them down to fix the problems. What to do? What to do?

People 100 years ago had access to clean air, water and uncontaminated food and they died from bee stings, rusty nails, rabies, childbirth, infant mortality, the ripe old age of 40, and the list goes on. They needed healthcare (preventative measures and emergency medicine) and usually had access to some form of it. Healthcare back then just wasn't worth accessing until industry stepped in.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   

whitewave
Thank you for correcting my inaccurate use of words, soficrow.




Sorry whitewave. I like your posts - and think they are valuable - I did NOT mean to put you down or come off rude.





Your statement about people with healthy immune systems being more likely to die sounds like rubbish to me. Do you have any links, sources, examples in nature, precedents in history to back up that claim?




Yes - I have been posting them all over ATS since the studies started coming out. Ie.:


Bird flu targeting the young

...data compiled by the Toronto Star lead to one particularly compelling question: Why does the H5N1 virus attack the young? The Star's analysis shows that all but six of the 97 people who have died globally so far from bird flu were under 40. People, in other words, with the strongest immune systems and not, as one might expect, the elderly and those already sick. The median age was 19, and a quarter of them were under age 12.

Children, teenagers and young adults are the unfortunate victims of the deadly H5N1 bird flu sweeping through poultry farms in Asia, Africa and now Europe.Hooked up to breathing tubes and dialysis machines in local hospital beds, bodies soaked in sweat, and blood oozing from their nostrils and mouth, they have a mere 50 per cent chance of pulling through. The rest die in a matter of days.

***

In a study published in the online medical journal Respiratory Research in November, Hong Kong scientists noted the H5N1 was creating what's called a "cytokine storm" in its healthy victims, causing their immune system to overreact to the virus, flood the lungs with an overabundance of antibodies and cause extensive lung damage, eventually shutting them down. It's the same response scientists believe caused so many deaths during the Spanish flu.

***

The outbreak of the 1918 virus - which was described as Spanish flu and is known to scientists as H1N1 - resulted in the deaths of up to 25 million people around the world. ...(The results of a new) study, published in the science journal Nature... suggest the deaths were the result of an immune system overreaction. ... Previously, it had been believed that the scale of mortality in 1918 had been due to a second wave of infection that struck those already hit by flu. ...However, the new findings indicate that deadly inflammation, triggered by an out of control immune response, could have been the real cause.

Ordinary seasonal flu typically hits children, the elderly and those with weakened immune systems the hardest, but the 1918 virus infected many young and healthy adults. ...Scientists have long questioned why the 1918 flu strain proved so deadly and why so many victims were people not normally vulnerable to flu. ...Similar patterns of mortality have been observed in those infected by (H5N1) bird flu...

Dr Christopher Basler, a co-author of the study from Mont Sinai School of Medicine, in New York, said the findings "could help us develop more targeted therapies to combat pathogenic infections, including different types of influenzas or perhaps avian influenza". ...Professor Karl Nicholson, the professor of infectious diseases at the University of Leicester, said learning more about "the cause of the high morbidity of H1N1 ... might then open the way for alternative methods of treatment".

***

The report in Nature describing the increased host immune response caused by the 1918 pandemic influenza virus (report, Sept 29) is the latest in a series of studies suggesting it is the host response (the “cytokine storm”) that is probably responsible for most deaths now being seen with H5N1 infections.

***

Why H5N1 bird flu is so lethal

Scientists find out how bird flu kills people




Pollution and modern disease have changed the way our immune systems function. It seems to matter when you boost your immune system - and immunity no longer works the way the drug and medical insurance industries would have us believe it does.

This paper is a must read:

PDF: Toxicant-induced loss of tolerance – An Emerging Theory of Disease?
Toxicant-Induced Loss of Tolerance – An Emerging Theory of Disease?
or www.herc.org...

Claudia Miller is quite amazing, and her testimonies before Congress and various institutions are revealing.





Besides, why would the evil pharmaceutical/medical/agricultural dealers of death want to create a disease that kills off the healthy and leaves the less than healthy? Where's the benefit to that?



The creation of disease-causing agents was/is an accidental byproduct of common processes. Only the decision NOT to deal with it openly, honestly and responsibly is purposeful - and the benefit is monetary.




What evidence/sources do you have for your generalized comment about diabetes and genetics?




As I said, diabetes' "genetic" base results from mutation. It's not just a scientific fact but logically obvious.

...Or are you suggesting that a single guy ran around impregnating 10,000 women a day for a year or two 20-odd years ago, thus explaining the sudden skyrocketing incidence of the disease?

Gene mutation linked to diabetes

Gene mutation contributes to diabetes

Genetic Mutation Links Diabetes and Hearing Loss

Diabetes-associated fat disorder traced to genetic mutation


The critical question is, "What the heck is causing all these mutations?"

...More later. RL calls.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Thanks Soficrow for all the links. Kinda late after a busy day so I'll have to check them out tomorrow but didn't want you to think I'd forgotten you. Appreciate your efforts to educate.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave
Thanks Soficrow for all the links. Kinda late after a busy day so I'll have to check them out tomorrow but didn't want you to think I'd forgotten you. Appreciate your efforts to educate.



You're welcome whitewave.

...My bird flu research grew out of my research on a disease called fibromuscular dysplasia. The pathology and molecular biology are similar in both diseases, and also are apparent in epidemic chronic disease.

Point being - I have piles of references. So if you want something, chances are good I have it. ...Of course, chances are less that I might actually be able to find it quickly...


Looking forward to hearing back from you.

sofi



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 03:12 AM
link   
soficrow,
I wasn't being sarcastic-I was genuinely thankful for the correction.
Took a while to read through the links you provided. Blast that having to work for a living!
Anyway, despite all the evidence you provided, the topic was universal health care and the arguments against that still stand. (I would be interested in reading the material you offered for my own personal enrichment, though.)
Once had a Russian tutor for my children that was a physicist (as was her husband). She and her husband had left Russia before the fall of communism there and we spent many hours discussing the healthcare system in her country. She said that urgently needed surgeries took about 6 months of waiting and there were NO elective surgeries. Everything worked on the "bribe me" system. She said the hospitals were grossly overcrowded with many people being admitted to a gurney in the hallway where they spent their entire hospitalization time. It was quite common, according to her eyewitness report, for surgeons to approach a surgical candidate minutes from being wheeled into surgery and ask them if they wanted anesthesia while holding out their hand for the bribe money! In the end, their entire political system collapsed as they had not been able to support themselves financially for the entire duration of the communistic regime.
People think it can't happen here. Not in America. Every great civilization throughout history has eventually fallen from it's former glory and power and America will be no exception. I just hope it's eventual demise is not from something totally preventable like "breaking the bank" with universal healthcare. We are not the world's police or their doctors/saviors. This is a great country but it's being mismanaged to death.



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 03:44 AM
link   
I think citing the collapsing Soviet Union's health system as a reason not have one is a bit off.

There are multiple examples of a National Health Service that do work, especially in Europe. The UK's is the most underfunded of the lot, yet it does a stand up job and has improved vastly in recent years.



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 04:19 AM
link   
And should that extend to the illegal aliens that are invading this country? How about if we just open the flood gates to the entire world? Why stop with illegal aliens on one border? We are, after all, responsible for the entire world and willing to pay to rebuild entire countries. My pockets are endlessly deep. That .32 cents I fished out of my couch cushions to put gas in my tank was shamelessly wasteful. I could've paid for a coronary artery bypass graft. What was I thinking?
I work in the healthcare industry and I see on a daily basis the threats to it. If universal health care becomes law, I will be going to truck driving school (as will many nurses and doctors). With all the medicare changes, most doctors I know are planning for very early retirement. They don't care if they don't have a fortune to live on for the rest of their lives, they just need enough to make their escape from the medical field. Medicare/medicaid is universal health care's back door. UHC is being ushered in by degrees kind of like the frog that gets boiled to death.
The entire mentality of wanting/demanding that someone else pay for your wants/needs is childish. When did we develop this welfare mentality? "I must have it, therefore, someone needs to get it for me". (Stamps foot and pouts)
We already have a multitude of "free" (ie, taxpayer funded) health programs. Been to your local health department lately? Free birth control, free immunizations, free well-baby clinics, free nutrition and health classes, free TB testing and treatment, etc.
Checked your local newspaper? There's probably an ad in there about free cholesterol testing or glucose testing or free flu shots. We (nurses) don't get paid for doing them either. We volunteer our time/skills for those free services.
Your welcome.



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 04:54 AM
link   
From what I read there, it just seems to me like the way it is being implemented in the US is a bit crap then.

Maybe you should take a look see and learn a lesson of us Euro's? Haha, I can here it now, learning off those "pinko-socialists"..God forbid....




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join