Posted on 03/20/2010 2:04:07 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan
Critics of the U.S. health care system frequently point to other countries as models for reform. They point out that many countries spend far less on health care than the United States yet seem to enjoy better health outcomes. The United States should follow the lead of those countries, the critics say, and adopt a government- run, national health care system.
However, a closer look shows that nearly all health care systems worldwide are wrestling with problems of rising costs and lack of access to care. There is no single international model for national health care, of course. Countries vary dramatically in the degree of central control, regulation, and cost sharing they impose, and in the role of private insurance. Still, overall trends from national health care systems around the world suggest the following:
Although no country with a national health care system is contemplating abandoning universal coverage, the broad and growing trend is to move away from centralized government control and to introduce more market-oriented features.
Excerpts
"There are several reasons to be skeptical of these rankings. First, many choose areas of comparison based on the results they wish to achieve, or according to the values of the comparer. For example, SiCKO cites a 2000 World Health Organization study that ranks the U.S. health care system 37th in the world, “slightly better than Slovenia.
This study bases its conclusions on such highly subjective measures as “fairness” and criteria that are not strictly related to a country’s health care system, such as “tobacco control.” For example, the WHO report penalizes the United States for not having a sufficiently progressive tax system, not providing all citizens with health insurance, and having a general paucity of social welfare programs. Indeed, much of the poor performance of the United States is due to its ranking of 54th in the category of fairness. The United States is actually penalized for adopting Health Savings Accounts and because, according to the WHO, patients pay too much out of pocket.19 Such judgments clearly reflect a particular political point of view, rather than a neutral measure of health care quality. Notably, the WHO report ranks the United States number one in the world in responsiveness to patients’ needs in choice of provider, dignity, autonomy, timely care, and confidentiality.
Difficulties even arise when using more neutral categories of comparison. Nearly all cross-country rankings use life expectancy as one measure. In reality though, life expectancy is a poor measure of a health care system. Life expectancies are affected by exogenous factors such as violent crime, poverty, obesity, tobacco and drug use, and other issues unrelated to health care. As the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development explains, “It is difficult to estimate the relative contribution of the numerous nonmedical and medical factors that might affect variations in life expectancy across countries and over time.”21 Consider the nearly threeyear disparity in life expectancy between Utah (78.7 years) and Nevada (75.9 years), despite the fact that the two states have essentially the same health care systems.22 In fact, a study by Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider for the American Enterprise Institute found that those exogenous factors are so distorting that if you correct for homicides and accidents, the United States rises to the top of the list for life expectancy.
Similarly, infant mortality, a common measure in cross-country comparisons, is highly problematic. In the United States, very low birth-weight infants have a much greater chance of being brought to term with the latest medical technologies. Some of those low birthweight babies die soon after birth, which boosts our infant mortality rate, but in many other Western countries, those high-risk, low birth-weight infants are not included when infant mortality is calculated.24 In addition, many countries use abortion to eliminate problem pregnancies. For example, Michael Moore cites low infant mortality rates in Cuba, yet that country has one of the world’s highest abortion rates, meaning that many babies with health problems that could lead to early deaths are never brought to term.25
When you compare the outcomes for specific diseases, the United States clearly outperforms the rest of the world. Whether the disease is cancer, pneumonia, heart disease, or AIDS, the chances of a patient surviving are far higher in the United States than in other countries. For example, according to a study published in the British medical journal The Lancet, the United States is at the top of the charts when it comes to surviving cancer. Among men, roughly 62.9 percent of those diagnosed with cancer survive for at least five years. The news is even better for women: the five year-survival rate is 66.3 percent, or two-thirds. The countries with the next best results are Iceland for men (61.8 percent) and Sweden for women (60.3 percent). Most countries with national health care fare far worse. For example, in Italy, 59.7 percent of men and 49.8 percent of women survive five years. In Spain, just 59 percent of men and 49.5 percent of women do. And in Great Britain, a dismal 44.8 percent of men and only a slightly better 52.7 percent of women live for five years after diagnosis.26
Notably, when former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi needed heart surgery last year, he didn’t go to a French, Canadian, Cuban, or even Italian hospital—he went to the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.27 Likewise, Canadian MP Belinda Stronach had surgery for her breast cancer at a California hospital.28 Berlusconi and Stronach were following in the footsteps of tens of thousands of patients from around the world who come to the United States for treatment every year.29 One U.S. hospital alone, the Mayo Clinic, treats roughly 7,200 foreigners every year. Johns Hopkins University Medical Center treats more than 6,000, and the Cleveland Clinic more than 5,000. One out of every three Canadian physicians sends a patient to the Unites States for treatment each year,30 and those patients along with the Canadian government spend more than $1 billion annually on health care in this country.31
Moreover, the United States drives much of the innovation and research on health care worldwide. Eighteen of the last 25 winners of the Nobel Prize in Medicine are either U.S. citizens or individuals working here.32 U.S. companies have developed half of all new major medicines introduced worldwide over the past 20 years.33 In fact, Americans played a key role in 80 percent of the most important medical advances of the past 30 years.34 As shown in Figure 2, advanced medical technology is far more available in the United States than in nearly any other country.35
The same is true for prescription drugs. For example, 44 percent of Americans who could benefit from statins, lipid-lowering medication that reduces cholesterol and protects against heart disease, take the drug. That number seems low until compared with the 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons, and 17 percent of Italians who could both benefit from the drug and receive it.36 Similarly, 60 percent of Americans taking anti-psychotic medication for the treatment of schizophrenia or other mental illnesses are taking the most recent generation of drugs, which have fewer side effects. But just 20 percent of Spanish patients and 10 percent of Germans receive the most recent drugs.37
Of course, it is a matter of hot debate whether other countries have too little medical technology or the Unites States has too much.38 Some countries, such as Japan, have similar access to technology. Regardless, there is no dispute that more health care technology is invented and produced in the United States than anywhere else.39 Even when the original research is done in other countries, the work necessary to convert the idea into viable commercial products is most often done in the United States.40
By the same token, not only do thousands of foreign-born doctors come to the United States to practice medicine, but foreign pharmaceutical companies fleeing taxes, regulation, and price controls are increasingly relocating to the United States.41 In many ways, the rest of the world piggybacks on the U.S. system."---Pages 3-5
France
"France provides a basic level of universal health insurance through a series of mandatory, largely occupation-based, health insurance funds. These funds are ostensibly private entities but are heavily regulated and supervised by the French government. Premiums (funded primarily through payroll taxes), benefits, and provider reimbursement rates are all set by the government. In these ways the funds are similar to public utilities in the United States.
In 2006, the health care system ran a €€10.3 billion deficit. This actually shows improvement over 2005, when the system ran an €€11.6 billion deficit.49 The health care system is the largest single factor driving France’s overall budget deficit, which has grown to €€ 49.6 billion, or 2.5 percent of GDP, threatening France’s ability to meet the Maastricht criteria for participation in the Eurozone.50 This may be just the tip of the iceberg. Some government projections suggest the deficit in the health care system alone could top €€29 billion by 2010 and €€ 66 billion by 2020.51
Most services require substantial copayments, ranging from 10 to 40 percent of the cost. As a result, French consumers pay for roughly 13 percent of health care out of pocket, roughly the same percentage as U.S. consumers. 53 Moreover, because many health care services are not covered, and because many of the best providers refuse to accept the fee schedules imposed by the insurance funds, more than 92 percent of French residents purchase complementary private insurance.54 In fact, private insurance now makes up roughly 12.7 percent of all health care spending in France, a percentage exceeded only by the Netherlands (15.2 percent) and the United States (35 percent) among industrialized countries.55
Much of the burden for cost containment in the French system appears to have fallen on physicians. The average French doctor earns just €€ 40,000 per year ($55,000), compared to $146,000 for primary care physicians and $271,000 for specialists in the United States. This is not necessarily bad (there is no “right” income for physicians) and is partially offset by two benefits: 1) tuition at French medical schools is paid by the government, meaning French doctors do not graduate with the debt burden carried by U.S. physicians, and 2) the French legal system is tort-averse, significantly reducing the cost of malpractice insurance.64 The French government also attempts to limit the total number of practicing physicians, imposing stringent limits on the number of students admitted to the second year of medical school.65
Of more immediate concern, global budgets and fee restrictions for hospitals have led to a recurring lack of capital investment, resulting in a shortage of medical technology and lack of access to the most advanced care. For example, the United States has eight times as many MRI units per million people and four times as many CT scanners as France.69 This partially reflects the more technology-reliant way of practicing medicine in the United States, but it has also meant delays in treatment for some French patients. Also, strong disparities are evident in the geographic distribution of health care resources, making access to care easier in some regions than others.70 Thus, while the French system has generally avoided the waiting lists associated with other national health care systems, limited queues do exist for some specialized treatments and technologies. In some cases, hospitals in danger of exceeding their budgets have pushed patients to other facilities to save money.71
Finally, the government has tried to curtail the use of prescription drugs. The French have long had an extremely high level of drug consumption. French general practitioners (GPs) prescribe on average €€ 260,000 worth of drugs a year.72However, the National Health Authority has begun de-listing drugs from its reimbursement formulary.73 Many French patients have responded by switching to similar, reimbursable drugs, but some patients may not be getting the medicine they need. For example, one study found that nearly 90 percent of French asthma patients are not receiving drugs that might improve their condition.74---Pages 8-10
Italy
"Italy’s national health care system is rated second in the world by the WHO.89 Yet a closer examination shows the system to be deeply troubled, plagued with crippling bureaucracy, mismanagement and general disorganization, spiraling costs, and long waiting lists.
The Italian government does not provide official information on waiting lists, but numerous studies have shown them to be widespread and growing, particularly for diagnostic tests. For example, the average wait for a mammogram is 70 days; for endoscopy, 74 days; for a sonogram, 23 days.104Undoubtedly, this is due in part to a shortage of modern medical technology. The United States has twice as many MRI units per million people and 25 percent more CT scanners.105 Ironically, the best-equipped hospitals in northern Italy have even longer waiting lists since they draw patients from the poorer southern regions as well.106
Italy has imposed a relatively strict drug formulary as well as price controls, and has thereby succeeded in reducing pharmaceutical spending, long considered a problem for the Italian health care system. In 2006, Italian drug prices fell (or were pushed) 5 percent, even as drug prices rose in the United States and much of the rest of the world. However, the savings came at a cost: the introduction of many of the newest and most innovative drugs was blocked.107
Conditions in public hospitals are considered substandard, particularly in the south. They lack not just modern technology, but basic goods and services; and overcrowding is widespread. Conditions are frequently unsanitary. For example, one of the largest public hospitals in Rome was recently found to have garbage piled in the hallways, unguarded radioactive materials, abandoned medical records, and staff smoking next to patients.108 Private hospitals are considered much better and some regions have contracted with private hospitals to treat NHS patients.
Dissatisfaction with the Italian health care system is extremely high, by some measures the highest in Europe.109 In polls, Italians say that their health care system is much worse than that of other countries and give it poor marks for meeting their needs. Roughly 60 percent of Italians believe that health care reform is “urgent,” and another 24 percent believe it is “desirable.” In general, Italians believe that such reform should incorporate market-based solutions. More than two-thirds (69 percent) believe that giving patients more control over health care spending will improve the system’s quality. And 55 percent believe that it should be easier for patients to spend their own money on health care.110"---Pages 12-14
Spain
"Spain’s national health care system operates on a highly decentralized basis, giving primary responsibility to the country’s 17 regions. The Spanish Constitution guarantees all citizens the “right” to health care, including equal access to preventive, curative, and rehabilitative services; but responsibility for implementing the country’s universal system is being devolved to regional governments. The degree and speed of devolution is uneven, however, with some regions only recently achieving maximum autonomy.111
Not surprisingly, health care spending varies widely from region to region. The differences in expenditures, as well as in spending priorities, lead to considerable variance in the availability of health resources. For example, Catalonia has more than 4.5 hospital beds per 1,000 residents, while Valencia has just 2.8.113
Waiting lists vary from region to region but are a significant problem everywhere. On average, Spaniards wait 65 days to see a specialist, and in some regions the wait can be much longer. For instance, the wait for a specialist in the Canary Islands is 140 days. Even on the mainland, in Galacia, the wait can be as long as 81 days. For some specialties the problem is far worse, with a national average of 71 days for a gynecologist and 81 days for a neurologist.114 Waits for specific procedures are also lengthy. The mean waiting time for a prostectomy is 62 days; for hip replacement surgery, 123 days.115
Some health services that U.S. citizens take for granted are almost totally unavailable. For example, rehabilitation, convalescence, and care for those with terminal illness are usually left to the patient’s relatives. There are very few public nursing and retirement homes, and few hospices and convalescence homes.116
There are also shortages of modern medical technologies. Spain has one-third as many MRI units per million people as the United States, just over one-third as many CT units, and fewer lithotripters.121 Again, there is wide variation by region. For example, two regions, Ceuta and Melilla, do not have a single MRI unit.122 The regional variation is important because Spaniards face bureaucratic barriers in trying to go to another region for treatment.
As a result, Spain has fewer physicians and fewer nurses per capita than most European countries and the United States. The lack of primary care physicians is particularly acute.124"---Pages 14-15
Norway
"Norway has a universal, tax-funded, singlepayer, national health system. All Norwegian citizens, as well as anyone living or working in Norway, are covered under the National Insurance Scheme. Norwegians can, however, opt out of the government system by paying out of pocket. In addition, many Norwegians go abroad for treatment to avoid the waiting lists endemic under the government program.151
The Norwegian health care system has experienced serious problems with long and growing waiting lists.161 Approximately 280,000 Norwegians are estimated to be waiting for care on any given day (out of a population of just 4.6 million).162 The average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than four months; for a prostectomy, close to three months; and for a hysterectomy, more than two months.163 Approximately 23 percent of all patients referred for hospital admission have to wait longer than three months for admission.164"---Pages 18-19
Great Britain
"Almost no one disputes that Britain’s National Health Service faces severe problems, and few serious national health care advocates look to it as a model. Yet it appears in Moore’s movie SiCKO as an example of how a national health care system should work, so it is worth examining.
And that level of services leaves much to be desired. Waiting lists are a major problem. As many as 750,000 Britons are currently awaiting admission to NHS hospitals. These waits are not insubstantial and can impose significant risks on patients. For example, by some estimates, cancer patients can wait as long as eight months for treatment.236 Delays in receiving treatment are often so long that nearly 20 percent of colon cancer patients considered treatable when first diagnosed are incurable by the time treatment is finally offered.237
In some cases, to prevent hospitals from using their resources too quickly, mandatory minimum waiting times have been imposed. The fear is that patients will flock to the most efficient hospitals or those with smaller backlogs. Thus a top-flight hospital like Suffolk East PCT was ordered to impose a minimum waiting time of at least 122 days before patients could be treated or the hospital would lose a portion of its funding.238
The problem affects not only hospitals. There are also lengthy waits to see physicians, particularly specialists. In 2004, as a cost-cutting measure, the government negotiated low salaries for general practitioners in exchange for allowing them to cut back the hours they practice. Few are now available nights or weekends.240 Problems with specialists are even more acute. For example, roughly 40 percent of cancer patients never get to see an oncology specialist.241
The government’s official target for diagnostic testing is a wait of no more than 18 weeks by 2008. In reality, it doesn’t come close.242 The latest estimates suggest that for most specialties, only 30 to 50 percent of patients are treated within 18 weeks. For trauma and orthopedics patients, the figure is only 20 percent. Overall, more than half of British patients wait more than 18 weeks for care.243
Explicit rationing also exists for some types of care, notably kidney dialysis, open heart surgery, and some other expensive procedures and technologies.244 Patients judged too ill or aged for the procedures to be costeffective may be denied treatment altogether."---Pages 23-25
Canada
"Canada is another country that did not make the top 20 health care systems in the WHO rankings (it finished 30th), and few serious advocates of universal health care look to it as a model. As Jonathan Cohn puts it, “Nobody in the United States seriously proposes recreating the British and Canadian system here—in part because, as critics charge . . . they really do have waiting lines.”312 However, since the press still frequently cites it as an example, it is worth briefly examining.
Although Canada is frequently referred to as having a “national health system,” the system is actually decentralized with considerable responsibility devolved to Canada’s 10 provinces and 2 territories. It is financed jointly by the provinces and the federal government, similar to the U.S. Medicaid program. In order to qualify for federal funds, each provincial program must meet five criteria: 1) universality—available to all provincial residents on uniform terms and conditions; 2) comprehensiveness—covering all medically necessary hospital and physician services; 3) portability—allowing residents to remain covered when moving from province to province; 4) accessibility—having no financial barriers to access such as deductibles or copayments; and 5) public administration—administered by a nonprofit authority accountable to the provincial government.
Waiting lists are a major problem under the Canadian system. No accurate government data exists, but provincial reports do show at least moderate waiting lists. The best information may come from a survey of Canadian physicians by the Fraser Institute, which suggests that as many as 800,000 Canadians are waiting for treatment at any given time. According to this survey, treatment time from initial referral by a GP through consultation with a specialist, to final treatment, across all specialties and all procedures (emergency, nonurgent, and elective), averaged 17.7 weeks in 2005.315 And that doesn’t include waiting to see the GP in the first place.
Defenders of national health care have attempted to discount these waiting lists, suggesting that the waits are shorter than commonly portrayed or that most of those on the waiting list are seeking elective surgery. A look at specialties with especially long waits shows that the longest waits are for procedures such as hip or knee replacement and cataract surgery, which could arguably be considered elective. However, fields that could have significant impact on a patient’s health, such as neurosurgery, also have significant waiting times.316 In such cases, the delays could be life threatening. A study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that at least 50 patients in Ontario alone have died while on the waiting list for cardiac catheterization.317 Data from the Joint Canada–United States Survey of Health (a project of Statistics Canada and the National Center for Health Statistics) revealed that “thirty-three percent of Canadians who say they have an unmet medical need reported being in pain that limits their daily activities.”318 In a 2005 decision striking down part of Quebec’s universal care law, Canadian Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote that it was undisputed that many Canadians waiting for treatment suffer chronic pain and that “patients die while on the waiting list.”319
Clearly there is limited access to modern medical technology in Canada. The United States has five times as many MRI units per million people and three times as many CT scanners.320 Indeed, there are more CT scanners in the city of Seattle than in the entire province of British Columbia.321
Physicians are also in short supply. Canada has roughly 2.1 practicing physicians per 1,000 people, far less than the OECD average. Worse, the number of physicians per 1,000 people has not grown at all since 1990. And while the number of nurses per 1,000 people remains near the OECD average, that number has been declining since 1990.322
In addition, although national health care systems are frequently touted as doing a better job of providing preventive care, U.S. patients are actually more likely than Canadians to receive preventive care for chronic or serious health conditions. In particular, Americans are more likely to get screened for common cancers, including cancers of the breast, cervix, prostate, and colon.323
Canadians may jealously guard their system and resist “Americanizing” it, but even advocates of universal health care are coming to recognize that it does not provide a valid model for U.S. health care reform.---Pages 31-33
Which country are you from? For a small country, nationalized health care won’t make as much of a difference.
Why do people from ALL over the world come to the U. S. for their operations?
Thanks for post. Keeper.... and cheer up! ... you may be on a waiting list but you’ll be INSURED!
You are a just being downright honest, and you clearly didn’t read the above information provided, but instead start posting on the thread. You remind me of the head of the British Conservative Party, a man that believes the government should “subsidize” fresh fruits and veggies and provide all citizens with memberships to gyms, but rather than questioning your “conservatism” (if you have any, the WHO report ranks the United States number one in the world in responsiveness to patients’ needs in choice of provider, dignity, autonomy, timely care, and confidentiality. America is clearly number one in the most important health care category - treatment and survival of diseases, “Whether the disease is cancer, pneumonia, heart disease, or AIDS, the chances of a patient surviving are far higher in the United States than in other countries.” And America clearly not only has more access to medical technology, we possess more medical equipment. Get over your misguided sense of pride and jealousy of America.
I’m heavily leaning towards....Canada...they have a great deal of jealousy when it comes to our health care system. Or he’s British.
This isn't "ballance", just the fact.
Up to 20,000 people have died needlessly early after being denied cancer drugs on the NHS, it was revealed yesterday. Read more
You should not be seeking "ballance", but truth.
Simple, people come from the “single payer” countries because of the long waiting lists, poor access to care, outdated facilities, and outdated medical equipment. America is the place to be if you have any type of disease or cancer.
Which country are you from? For a small country, nationalized health care won’t make as much of a difference.
Okay, let’s try a really important question: Are you a conservative? If so, what are ideals, position on issues, and why did you join a grassroots conservative forum in based in the U.S.?
Okay, let’s try a really important question: Are you a conservative? If so, what are ideals, position on issues, and why did you join a grassroots conservative forum in based in the U.S.?
“
Critics of the U.S. health care system frequently point to other countries
as models for reform.
“
But they’ll never move to those workers’ paradises.
Instead they stay here and try to make everyone else’s live h-ll.
Fair enough, but I am still interested in knowing what you believe in exactly..
The African American doctor of 30 years I protested TURN COAT JOHN TANNER, bribed by a NATO job, said he’d retire..0 may get to the point of having to CONSCRIPT the retired doctors, or import Non-English speaking ones or both.
AIN’T JUST GRANNY & GRAMPS GETTING WHACK, MILITARY IS TOO.
KEEP THE CALLS UP! DC OFFICE LOCAL OFFICE
Hold your own street protest in front of your reps local offices. Or busy street corners. Try and get the local media to cover it. Hammer the Medicare/SS issue, nothing like mad grannies and gramps.
This is from a 2007 contact list of congressional aides. Some might not be there any longer, but worth a try. The ones on the one post are senate aides, a few have bounced back, it’s worth the effort to clog up their email system along with the phones, and 1/3rd of these senators are up for re-election.
Mail must be inspected for anthrax takes 2 weeks, so if you snail mail send a post card
Contact congressional aides.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1857768/posts
U.S. Senate switchboard: (202) 224-3121
U.S. House switchboard: (202) 225-3121
White House comments: (202) 456-1111
Find your House Rep.: http://www.house.gov/writerep
Find your US Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Toll free to the US Senate:
1-800-882-2005. (Spanish number)
1-800-417-7666. (English number)
Courtesy of a pro-amnesty group, no less!!
Defeat Obamacare call list: List now contains the new MAYBES culled from FR posts. Be sure to call KNOWN RINOS too.THEY ARE ANSWERING THEIR LOCAL NUMBERS
Here is one of the ones Rush gave out on the radio that I’m calling. So far it’s been busy but I’m going to burn it up till I get to tell my congress critter to vote NO!
Join me?..... 1-877-762-8762
CODE RED Contact list http://www.nrcc.org/CodeRed/targets/
Remember they are all being offered BRIBES for their votes. Ask them how much their bribe price is.
The National Republican Congressional Committee has published a target list on health care. In addition to continuing to contact the five Tennessee Democrat Congressmen, you can go http://www.votervoice.net/link/clickthrough/ext/94697.aspx to contact some of these targets. Much of the talk following Obama’s announcement has focused on how to defeat this second bill through reconciliation, but that is misleading because the first step to defeating Obamacare is not by concentrating on defeating the “fixer” bill but by defeating the Senate bill in the House when it goes to the floor for an up-or-down vote on Sunday March 21st.
Good idea from the bloggers at Hillbuzz:
http://hillbuzz.org/2010/03/17/action-items-march-17th-2010/
They offer specifics and links on how to put pressure on Dem DONORS, who have private numbers for legislators who may have taken their phones off the hook.
Congress may not want to hear from us, but they’ll listen to the money men.
Call them and fax them them instead of telling us you don’t trust them.
www.faxzero.com for two free faxes a day.
www.gotfreefax.com for another 2 free faxes per day.
Congressional Dems on Twitter
http://www.arrghpaine.com/congressional-dems-on-twitter
RUSH says to pressure these 2
Charles Wilson, Ohio Toll Free Number 888-706-1833 DC (202) 225-5705 fx: (202) 225-5907, Bridgeport, (740) 633-5705 fx: (740) 633-5727, Canfield, (330) 533-7250 fx: (330) 533-7136 Marietta, : (740) 376-0868 fx: (740) 376-0886 Ironton, (740) 533-9423 fx: (740) 533-9359 Wellsville, 330) 532-3740 Canfield, here is the zip code 44406.
Joe Cao DC (202) 225-6636 Fax: (202) 225-1988, NO (504) 483-2325 Fax: (504) 483-7944
NEW FLIPPERS
Rep. Bart Gordon TN (202) 225-4231 Fax: (202) 225-6887 Murfreesboro, TN 37130 GETS A NASA JOB for his vote
(615) 896-1986 Cookeville (931) 528-5907 Gallatin, (615) 451-5174
Mark Schauer D.C. (202) 225-6276 Fax: (202) 225-6281 Jackson, MI (517) 780-9075
Fax: (517) 780-9081 Toll-Free: (877) 737-6407
Christopher Carney (202) 225-3731 (570) 585-9988 PA 10th District
Dennis Kucinish, Lakewood 216)228-8850, Fax (216)228-6465,
Parma. 440)845-2707, Fax (440)845-2743, DC (202)225-5871
Dennis Cardoza DC (202) 225-6131, Fax: 225-0819, 800-356-6424, Merced, (209) 383-4455 Fax: 726-1065 Modesto 209) 527-1914 Fax: 527-5748 Modesto, (209) 527-1914
Fax: 527-5748
Jim Costa Fresno 559-495-1620, Fax:559-495-1027, Bakersfeld, 661-869-1620 Fax: 661-869-1027 DC Phone:202-225-3341 Fax: 202-225-9308 Fax (202)225-5745
James Oberstar (202) 225-6211, Duluth (218) 727-7474, Chisholm (218) 254-5761, Brainerd (218) 828-4400, North Branch, (651) 277-1234
Gabrielle Giffords (202) 225-2542 (520) 881-3588 AZ 8th District
John Boccieri (D), Ohio Voted Yes on Stupak, NO on Health Care.Contact info - DC office (202) 225-3876 - Fax - (202) 225-3059 (330) 489-4414, Local Fax - (330) 489-4448
Betsy Markey DC 202.225.4676, fx. 202.225.5870, Ft. Collins, 970.221.7110fx 970.221.7240, Greeley, 970.351.6007 fx 970.351.6068, Lamar, 719.931.4003
fx 719.931.4005, Sterling, 970.522.0203 fx 970.522.1783
Alan Boyd FL DC 202) 225-5235, (202) 225-5615 Fax Tallahassee (850) 561-3979
(850) 681-2902 Fax Panama City (850) 785-0812 (850) 763-3764 Fax
S. Kosmos FL DC (202) 225-2706 Fax: (202) 226-6299, Port Orange, FL 32129
Phone: (386) 756-9798 Fax: (386) 756-9903 Orlando, FL 32826
Phone: (407)-208-1106 Fax: (407)-208-1108
Brad Ellsworth IN Evansville (812) 465-6484 fx: (812) 422-4761 Terre Haute (812) 232-0523 fx: (812) 232-0526 DC ph: (202) 225-4636 Toll Free: (866) 567-0227
fx: (202) 225-3284
John Tanner (202) 225-4714, Union City, (731) 885-7070, Jackson Phone: (731) 423-4848, Millington (901) 873-5690 TN (RETIREING, His going away present to the USA, gets a NATO JOB for vote.
Thinks you are harassing him! Rep. John Garamendi’s (CA-10) (202) 225-1880
Fax: (202) 225-5914 Walnut Creek, (925) 932-8899 fax: (925) 932-8159 Antioch (925) 757-7187 Fax: (925) 757-7056 Fairfield, Phone: (707) 438-1822 Fax: (707) 438-0523
Bill Owens (202) 225-4611 (315) 782-3150 NY 23rd District
Tim Bishop (202) 225-3826 (631) 696-6500 NY 1st District
MOVED TO UNDECIDED
rec’d from NCTeaParty.com — Despite earlier assurances that he was a NO on health care reform and would not change his mind, Rep. Heath Shuler, NC 11, is now undecided.
Rep. Heath Shuler, North Carolina 11th http://shuler.house.gov/ DC Office Number: (202) 225-6401, DC Fax Number: (202) 226-6422 Local Office Number: (828) 252-1651, Local Fax Number: (828) 252-8734 Chief of Staff: Hayden Rogers email: hayden.rogers@mail.house.gov
Lincoln Davis 202.225.6831Fax: 202.226.5172 Columbia Office 931.490.8675
Jamestown 931.879.2361 Fax: 931.879.2389 McMinnville, 931.473.7251 Fax: 931.473.7259
.............................................
Steve Cohen TN, DC (202) 225-3265 Fax: (202) 225-5663, Memphis, TN, 901) 544-4131 Fax: (901) 544-4329
Harry Mitchell (202) 225-2190 (480) 946-2411 AZ 5th District
Ann Kirkpatrick (202) 225-2315 (928) 226-6914 AZ 1st District
Jerry McNerney (202) 225-1947 925-833-0643 CA 11th District
John Salazar 202-225-4761 970-245-7107 CO 3rd District
Jim Himes (202) 225-5541 (866) 453-0028 CT 4th District
Alan Grayson (202) 225-2176 (407) 841-1757 FL 8th District
Bill Foster (202) 225-2976 630-406-1114 IL 14th District
Baron Hill 202 225 5315 812 288 3999 IN 9th District
Gary Peters (202) 225-5802 (248) 273-4227 MI 9th District
Dina Titus (202) 225-3252 702-256-DINA (3462) NV 3rd District
Carol Shea-Porter (202) 225-5456 (603) 743-4813 NH 1st District
John Hall (202) 225-5441 (845) 225-3641 x49371 NY 19th District
Dan Maffei (202) 225-3701 (315) 423-5657 NY 25th District
Earl Pomeroy (202) 225-2611 (701) 224-0355 ND At-Large District
Steven Driehaus (202) 225-2216 (513) 684-2723 OH 1st District
Mary Jo Kilroy (202) 225-2015 (614) 294-2196 OH 15th District
Kathy Dahlkemper (202) 225-5406 (814) 456-2038 PA 3rd District
Patrick Murphy (202) 225-4276 (215) 826-1963 PA 8th District
Paul Kanjorski (202) 225-6511 (570) 825-2200 PA 11th District
John Spratt (202) 225-5501 (803)327-1114 SC 5th District
Tom Perriello (202) 225-4711 (276) 656-2291 VA 5th District
Alan Mollohan (202) 225-4172 (304) 623-4422 WVA 1st District
Nick Rahall (202) 225-3452 (304) 252-5000 WVA 3rd District
Steve Kagen (202) 225-5665 (920) 437-1954 WI 8th District
Bart Stupak (202) 225 4735 MI (MAYBE)
Brian Baird (202) 225-3536, Vancouver, (360) 695-6292. Olympia, (360) 352-9768, (MAYBE)
senator mark begich (202) 224-3004 toll free. (877) 501 - 6275 just became a MAYBE
Alan Mollohan (202) 225-4172 (304) 623-4422 WVA 1st District
Nick Rahall (202) 225-3452 (304) 252-5000 WVA 3rd District
Steve Kagen (202) 225-5665 (920) 437-1954 WI 8th District
Bart Stupak (202) 225 4735 MI (MAYBE)
Brian Baird (202) 225-3536, Vancouver, (360) 695-6292. Olympia, (360) 352-9768, (MAYBE)
senator mark begich (202) 224-3004 toll free. (877) 501 - 6275 just became a MAYBE
NEW NO’s
Zach Space (202) 225-6265 (330) 364-4300 OH 18th District
Jason Altmire 202-225-2565, Aliquippa, 724-378-0928, Natrona Heights, 724-226-1304 (NO)
Michael A. Arcuri (NY-24) NO
Harry Teague NM NO
James Matheson Toll-Free Number 1 (877) 677-9743 (202) 225-3011Mike Arcuri (202)225-3665 (315)793-8146 NY 24th District
And here are toll-free numbers we can use to call any Senators or Reps.
At the first number below you must wait through a tape recording urging you to tell your Rep or Senator to vote “yes” for the health care bill. Just hang on and when the recording is over, you will get the Capitol operator. Just ask for your Rep or Senator’s office. Then you will either talk to an aid or have the chance to leave a message for him/her to vote NO on the health care bill.
When you use the second number and the Capitol operator comes on, just ask for your Rep or Senator’s office. Every time I use this number I get the Rep or Senator’s answer machine, so it may be set up that way all the time...to go to their answer machine. Either way you can leave a message to vote NO on the health care bill!
We need to use these toll free numbers that have been set up for the health care/ BO supporters and illegals to use! After all they are FREE!
1-866-220-0044, 1-866-338-1015, 877-851-6437, 877-210-5351
Bravo! Well researched, well written article. And if it weren’t for the American health care system for the rest of the world to come to in it’s need, the world would be a very unhealthy place.
My daughter-in-law is from Canada. She has told my wife and I repeatedly that socialized medicine is a nightmare. At Christmas time her mother and step-father(American born) came for a visit. At one point after dinner “Heather’’ proclaimed her love of her ‘’wonderful free Canadian health-care system’’.(much to the consternation of her daughter) I asked, “Well, everything has to be paid for. How do you pay for this ‘’free’’ health care’’? Without waiting for her to answer my daughter-in-law said “In high taxes, that’s how’’. With that her mothers glowing assessment of Canadas health-care system dropped a bit. I then asked Heather, “Can you change providers’’? This was met with a puzzled look on Heathers face until her daughter(Pam) said’’ He means can you change from the people providing the health-care’’. “No’’, said Heather. ‘’Unless you want to go to the private clinic’’(that means if you have enough money to do so.) And finally I asked, “And when your husband needed (open-heart) surgery he...’’ “Came here’’, chimed in my daughter-in-law. Needless to say the conversation moved on from the subject of ‘’free Canadian health-care’’.
Hate to break it to you. But “socialized” health care
may be a nightmare for someone who has a decent private insurance. (bevore you get me wrong i have a private one and enjoy the benfits from having this “and i live in a country which has so called “socialized health care”).
But for someone who may could not afford any kind of
generall healthh care at all it´s definitelly an improvement.
The difference here is if you work you will have an insurance
no matter what you finally earn. But fact is you and your kids (especially the kids “they are the only ones
“we” would really protect and where we would really use tax money
to help them if their parrents turn out as total losers.
But for the rest. You may have a low job but you can be shure that you are able to get any kind of pills or medicine
available and given to you if it´s nessersary “for free” if you can´t afford it with your pay check. Do you will get the same treatment like me? (Well just no! i get “better” treatment because i pay more. Fair? NO! but this is how live is. So socialized medicine does not mean we all pay the same or even share the same system or more important are treatened equal? (because believe me it´s not this way).
But at least it ensuhres that every one has some kind of acess (even it´s not serious) to a fair share of medical treatment.
BUMP
There are economies of scale. You have about 8.5 million people. This is less than the number of customers of a single insurer in the US (Kaiser Permanente).
Also, medical innovations are not developed in Austria. The rest of the world relies on the US to do it and it isn’t cheap. Like a high-tech product, it doesn’t even get developed without being tested and sold at a high price to a few users. Eventually the price goes down.
And let me tell you, new drug development is expensive.
Hey you really cared to look at the population numbers!
And did some research! I´m really very impressed.
So bump for a later read! (because “we” have 01:40 am here and
today i´m really drunk ;-)
I will answer you tommorow.
Have a nice day and please excuse a drunk european “cousin” ;-)
Darkside, you’ve been getting your tail kicked here on this issue. Quit while you’re ahead. I’ve lived all my life in America and have NEVER been without health coverage, no matter how much I earned. And no one in America has ever been refused treatment. Don’t believe me? Ask Mexicans. America is their health-care provider. I’ve been in a union and non-union and have had and have employer provided health care of which I pay a per centage. There is no better health care system in all the world like Americas. Deal with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.