Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic American politics - phooey!

Thanks, Wendy, for posting that link. I was curious to see how the American list compared to the Canadian one (and specifically what the recs were for people with asthma)

Anyway, here are two passages from the document which may have been the source for Nan's concerns:
"Persons aged 25 through 64 years who have health conditions associated with higher risk of medical complications from influenza."
-- (note here, the omission of 65+)

also: "However, once vaccine demand among younger age groups has been met, programs and providers should offer vaccination to people 65 or older. "

As a nurse , Nan will be aware of how these programs get implemented. But I can see, based on reading Wendy's link, that a senior might get the feeling he was being encouraged to grab a passing ice floe.

c.

Wendy,

What three countries were these?

Just to clarify, in America insurance companies do not make decisions regarding what treatment patients will recieve; they made decisions regarding what they will pay for. And, yes, there is a difference.

When I had my hernia operation, my insurance company did not cover a special type of mesh used to cover the hernia. I decided I wanted that particular mesh, and paid out of pocket for it. Last month, my family doctor ordered a newly-developed expensive lab test which was not covered by my insurance. In this case, I decided to let my insurance company pay for an older version of the test. In both cases, decisions concerning my body, my health, and my treatment, were made by ME, not the insurance company.

As I understand it, in the UK, this is not the case. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that NICE dictates which procedures, medications, etc. will be available to patients and which will not. If NICE nixes a treatment, it was my understanding that the treatment is, literally, unavailable to the patient and the doctor/healthcare facility is forbidden from providing it. This, regardless of the doctor's medical opinion regarding the benefits of the treatment. Am I mistaken about this?

In Canada, it was my understanding that the government distributes the funds among the healthcare institutions, which then decide what procedures they will perform, and how many of each. If the hospital will perform, say, 100 MRI's, the 101st patient will not recieve the treatment - at least not that year. This, regardless of the doctor's medical opinion regarding the need for the procedure. Again, am I wrong?

You mention people throwing around false claims on internet, so I would be interested in hearing just how the systems work from people who have experienced them first-hand. What are the falsehoods and what is fact?

The information I mentioned was recently passed along to us in a report on the vaccine (which has its own problems, may I add.) The priority was pregnant women first, and then persons with compromised immune systems, followed by various other categories such as children and healthy adults. But the part that hit me was the specific restrictions on seniors. It was stated that *after* all these others were taken care of, seniors under 64 would be given the vaccine, and then seniors over 65. This was emphasized. I am not mistaken about it. I can't give you the reference because the spokesman was on television, for our area, and I don't remember who he was. However, it was very specific.

I personally don't want the vaccine. It was developed in a rush, without much testing, and apparently a fairly high percentage of the vaccine's test subjects developed Reyes Syndrome, which is a nerve disorder that can kill. Hopefully they'll do something about that, but I choose not to take the risk. However, the point was very clear about seniors. I don't know what their criteria for getting the vaccine are in Canada, Wendy, but I do know what they are here in San Diego.

And my previous statement still applies as well. Medicare is on the chopping block to fund socialized health care. Obama claims that he can cut five hundred billion from the program (while adding millions of persons not currently insured to it) and not harm services. I don't believe it. Especially since 40% of American doctors are threatening to retire if the health care bill passes. For some reason they don't want to treat, and can't afford to treat, more Medicare patients when the government will cut the already reduced and delayed payments for their current Medicare patients. It's very difficult to give the same level of service with more patients, less money and fewer doctors. Obama says he can do this, by cutting waste, fraud and abuse, but if he can do all that, why doesn't he do it now, instead of waiting for a bill?

Unless the man has magic powers, I don't see how it can be done, and I don't want to discover when I need the treatment that the waiting list is six months to two years -- if I can get a doctor at all.

I'm scared to death of this so-called health care reform, and I'm not the only senior who is scared, either.

But no one in Washington is listening, and I resent that more than ever.

Nan

P.S. Oh, and by the way, I'm glad that in those countries the government doesn't get between the doctor and patient, Wendy. Unfortunately, in the health care bill currently being debated in the Senate, and in the one in the House, that is not the case. There will be a board that decides which treatments are considered appropriate for you, by bureaucrats who are looking at the statistics and their bottom line, who make the decision of what care you receive, or if. That is already a fact. It was slipped into the Stimulus bill and passed months ago.

Back to Jimmy Carter, who claims the protests are racially motivated, stating :

I've read that James Carville repeated Carter's claim about "Bury Obama with Kennedy" signs on CNN's Anderson Cooper show. MSNBC took it one step further, as commentator Ed Schultz repeated the claim that the signs said "Bury Obama with Kennedy", adding "These people are phychos. That's what they are. Sometimes I think they *want* Obama to get shot. I do!"

Only problem is, the sign didn't say to bury Obama. It said to bury the Health Care Bill:

[img]http://newsrealblog.files.wordpress...edshow0911.jpg?w=300&h=269&h=269[/img]

American politics - phooey!

I try to stay out of political discussions on the boards, but I do have one small question regarding something Nan said above:

I have seen people making this exact complaint in just about all of the health care discussions I've followed, and I just don't understand it. By the definition of 'socialized health care' opponents are using, isn't Medicare socialized health care? If everyone objects so much to a socialized health care program, why are they so fiercely protecting Medicare and complaining about potential funding cuts? It seems like a double standard to me.

Just food for thought.

It might seem that way unless you understand that the Medicare agreement is a contract. We paid into the Medicare fund all our working lives, so it isn't a freebie. But the apparent plan now is to cut Medicare funds -- which are meant for senior health care -- and take the money to fund care for the uninsured, leaving the seniors with less, and possibly restricted medical care. Sorry, but I don't want my health care taken from me to fund some twenty-year old who has not spent forty years earning the privilege. Seniors paid plenty of money into the Medicare fund so that they would have guaranteed health care in their senior years, and now the government wants to take it away. Somehow, that seems like the government is violating its contract with seniors.

In the private sector, violating a contract like that would have consequences. When it comes to the government deciding to change the terms, you're up the proverbial creek. Or do you think that it's all right to promise something like that, and have seniors pay into the fund for years, and then say, sorry, we've changed our minds?

Nan

Oh, I understand now. The reason why it doesn't bother me so much is that I'm in the generation that will not be able to collect these benefits (Medicare, Social Security) because that funding pool will be long dried up by the time I reach retirement age (unlike those who are already retired or soon-to-retire, and will actually get to collect their hard-earned benefits).

You said They already take a chunk of my earnings from each paycheck for these programs, but I'll never get that money back. It's just a reality my generation has to live with, so I'm used to it. At least I know my money is helping take care of my elderly mother in her retirement!

On the other hand, I fully expect that to happen to me by the time I get old enough to start claiming some of that Social Security I've been paying into for twenty years... the system's going to crash long before I'd get anything back from it...

Also, part of the thing with Medicare is actually about the Medicare Advantage program, which is private insurance subsidized by the government, so Medicare recipients can purchase more coverage. Medicare Advantage is going to go bye-bye, and that will be a de facto cut for everyone now on that program...

PJ

To get back to comparing protests...

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2009/09/25/10155/

Tea Party vs. G20 anarchists

PJ

There's a dirty little secret about all those Medicare and SS trust funds that the government doesn't like to tell you. There is no trust fund, so they'll begin going bankrupt in 2017, not 2050 like they're telling you.

The trust fund is a filing cabinet in West Virginia that contains paper IOU's from the Treasury. All the "surplus" for Medicare and SS is spent in the general fund every year with those paper IOU's (they're not even treasuries, just worthless paper) stuffed into the filing cabinet year after year.

So while most people think there is a trust fund earning interest that can be drawn on after the two systems begin going into the red, in reality there isn't. So the real bankruptcy begins in 2017. Every dime spent on Medicare and SS after 2017 will need to be borrowed from the private sector or foreign investors in order to keep funding them. If you think deficits are big now, just wait until those payments are no longer lowering the deficit but are adding to it since the surplus is currently counted to lower the deficit.

Just an "I told you so" moment. Wendy challenged me when I said they are rationing the H1N1 vaccine here in the US. They are. People up to 64, with an underlying condition can get it. Those without are out of luck, and so are those 65 and older.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/elderly-question-flu-shot-controls-78063362.html

Nan

Interesting article, Nan. We don't have compromised immune systems, so are not looking to get the swine flu shot. We did get the regular flu shot. I agree, elderly with underlying conditions should get it. It seems there is no mechanism for that.

Artemis

Quick question: in the States, do you guys have to pay for an H1N1 shot or is it free?

ML

The government is paying for the H1N1 vaccine. The issue is still the short supply. The regular flu shots are covered by insurance. If you don't have insurance, you pay $20 (I think). Medicare paid for our regular flu shots. We're in the group that isn't likely to get H1N1 because we lived through something similar in our youth.
I learned from the LA Times today that the elderly with heart trouble, even though they are being treated with medicine, are at risk of a heart attack from the flu vaccine. That is why some doctors are not giving them the H1N1.
BTW, son and his family (wife, 2 sons 2 and 6) got the swine flu and came through O.K. They got it before the shots arrived.


Artemis One Doctor\'s Story

Thanks for the info, Artemis. I was curious about that.

That's interesting. My mom, who is over 65 - not sure she'd appreciate me saying how far over - had a triple by-pass ten years ago and she had the H1N1 shot with no complications. Glad I hadn't heard that info before she got the shot. But then, she and my dad get the flu shots every year.

ML

Here in Sweden everyone gets a flu shot for free. I got my shot yesterday - they started out with the young children and worked their way up through the progressively older parts of the population. Obviously the shots are paid for by our tax money, which is perfectly fine with me.

There are some risks linked to the vaccine, primarily to people who have had transplantations. A man who had had a heart transplant here in Sweden actually died. The shot boosts your immune system, which has to be suppressed in patients who have had an organ transplanted into their bodies. The man with the transplanted heart got an immune reaction which caused his body to reject (is that the word you use?) his new heart.

Ann

Glad your Mom is O.K., ML
There are 2 shots this year. The H1N1, which is in short supply and the regular flu shot. The regular shot shouldn't give her any trouble.

Artemis

She's already had both, Artemis. So have I for that matter. No shortage of H1N1 shots up here. We were vacinating the regular population before the rest of Canada was, Not sure how that happened, but, hey, for once I'm not complaining .

Of course, flu shots in Canada are always free. No different with the H1N1 shots. What surprised me was that I didn't even have to show identification or my health card. They just had us fill out a form that gave our address and answered some questions about alergies and, presto, instant flu shot. Guess they figured most of us wouldn't want to come back for a second one

ML