Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Letters to the Editor for Thursday, July 2, 2009
• Public health care option needed
Public health care option needed
I read Mr. John Love’s long letter titled “Fix health care system” (Letters, June 21) and found it unpersuasive. His prescription of more of the same of what got us into this mess is just not good enough anymore. We need real change in the American health care system and cannot let the naysayers divide us and just kick the problem down the road another generation like they did in the early 1990s.
Mr. Love commits a number of rhetorical sins in his argument. First and foremost, he uses the old trick of fighting a straw man by attacking the idea of a single-payer system for America when no such system is being proposed. Our president has made it clear that his plan will leave existing plans in place and at most people may have an option to join a publicly run plan. This is nothing like a single payer.
Others on the conservative side will sometimes argue that a government option will be poorly run and unacceptable to most and then argue that a government option will best any free market alternative due to cost savings. I guess free market competition isn’t so robust when it can’t compete with a government system that no one will be happy with. Perhaps the real fear is that a government option will be readily accepted and well liked like the socialist, government single-payer system that covers people over age 65 called Medicare.
Mr. Love also resorts to the myth of American exceptionalism stating that we have the finest health care system in the world. While we certainly have many of the world’s best hospitals and doctors, unless one has deep enough pockets or gold standard health insurance, access to those hospitals and doctors is very limited. U.S. citizens have lower life expectancy, high infant mortality, shorter healthy life expectancy and are generally less happy with their health care systems than people of Western Europe or even Canada which is held up as the bogeyman. If our system is so great, why do we spend so much and yet have worse outcomes than the rest of the world’s industrialized nations?
Mr. Love also fails to present a fair and balanced discussion on costs. Here in the U.S., we spent roughly double per capita or as a percentage of GPD as the citizens of Canada, New Zealand or Europe. Perhaps they do have lines for elective and non-critical procedures at times, but if they spent anything like what we spend, those would evaporate immediately. Moreover, while rich Americans can get instant service by writing a big check, anyone who is insured with an HMO already waits for appointments/minor surgeries. When I had to schedule a routine colonoscopy, the wait for an appointment was roughly six weeks. From start to finish, it took over two months for me to be checked. The bugaboo of government rationing care or getting between doctors and patients is often used to scare us, but the speakers rarely admit that insurance companies are doing that now with far more interest in the bottom line than in our health.
Mr. Love also relays a few anecdotes of poor service in single-payer countries. A few anecdotes are not data on which to base important decisions. For each of those stories, any one of us could repeat similar problems if not worse here in the U.S. in our for-profit system. Waits in American emergency care are hours long, occasionally ending in patients dying without being seen too. We also have insurance companies canceling people’s insurance as soon as they are diagnosed with an expensive condition. Now that’s a true free market response — jettison those who actually need their health insurance. Don’t read the fine print and you will find your chemo rider is void, sticking you with $1,000,000 in bills even though you had insurance. This happened to close friends who purchased health insurance from a local broker. Cancer survival rates in many single-payer countries are not that different than in the U.S. The main difference is more explained by how much is being spent on MRIs than on the way health care is being paid for.
The other great bogeyman of the right, trial lawyers, also get blamed for our cost structure even though the cost of malpractice trials cost less than one half of one percent of our health costs in 2001. Lawyers are a nice whipping boy but the data make a lie of the basic assertion.
The suggestion that health savings accounts will solve our problem is laughable. These have been around for years now and no great mass of people are using them. In my experience, insurers do everything they can to avoid catastrophic care plans as they aren’t profitable. If these plans were going to make a difference we’d have seen evidence by now. This suggestion is merely a distraction rooted in the mythology of markets solving problems. If recent history has taught us anything it’s that markets only work to maximize the profits of the strong players at the expense of the weak. Relying on the free market to fix healthcare when it has failed to do so for generations is the classic foolishness of repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different outcome. Our system rewards insurance and drug companies at the expense of individual patients. Let’s not keep doing that.
We need a public option in our health care system. This American has lived with a single-payer system for over six years in Europe and I’d gladly exchange the junk health insurance that costs me $7,000 a year before we get a dime of coverage for a public health option again. My guess is that there are millions if not hundreds of millions of Americans who would agree.
Dave Camp, Anahola
Public health care option needed
I read Mr. John Love’s long letter titled “Fix health care system” (Letters, June 21) and found it unpersuasive. His prescription of more of the same of what got us into this mess is just not good enough anymore. We need real change in the American health care system and cannot let the naysayers divide us and just kick the problem down the road another generation like they did in the early 1990s.
Mr. Love commits a number of rhetorical sins in his argument. First and foremost, he uses the old trick of fighting a straw man by attacking the idea of a single-payer system for America when no such system is being proposed. Our president has made it clear that his plan will leave existing plans in place and at most people may have an option to join a publicly run plan. This is nothing like a single payer.
Others on the conservative side will sometimes argue that a government option will be poorly run and unacceptable to most and then argue that a government option will best any free market alternative due to cost savings. I guess free market competition isn’t so robust when it can’t compete with a government system that no one will be happy with. Perhaps the real fear is that a government option will be readily accepted and well liked like the socialist, government single-payer system that covers people over age 65 called Medicare.
Mr. Love also resorts to the myth of American exceptionalism stating that we have the finest health care system in the world. While we certainly have many of the world’s best hospitals and doctors, unless one has deep enough pockets or gold standard health insurance, access to those hospitals and doctors is very limited. U.S. citizens have lower life expectancy, high infant mortality, shorter healthy life expectancy and are generally less happy with their health care systems than people of Western Europe or even Canada which is held up as the bogeyman. If our system is so great, why do we spend so much and yet have worse outcomes than the rest of the world’s industrialized nations?
Mr. Love also fails to present a fair and balanced discussion on costs. Here in the U.S., we spent roughly double per capita or as a percentage of GPD as the citizens of Canada, New Zealand or Europe. Perhaps they do have lines for elective and non-critical procedures at times, but if they spent anything like what we spend, those would evaporate immediately. Moreover, while rich Americans can get instant service by writing a big check, anyone who is insured with an HMO already waits for appointments/minor surgeries. When I had to schedule a routine colonoscopy, the wait for an appointment was roughly six weeks. From start to finish, it took over two months for me to be checked. The bugaboo of government rationing care or getting between doctors and patients is often used to scare us, but the speakers rarely admit that insurance companies are doing that now with far more interest in the bottom line than in our health.
Mr. Love also relays a few anecdotes of poor service in single-payer countries. A few anecdotes are not data on which to base important decisions. For each of those stories, any one of us could repeat similar problems if not worse here in the U.S. in our for-profit system. Waits in American emergency care are hours long, occasionally ending in patients dying without being seen too. We also have insurance companies canceling people’s insurance as soon as they are diagnosed with an expensive condition. Now that’s a true free market response — jettison those who actually need their health insurance. Don’t read the fine print and you will find your chemo rider is void, sticking you with $1,000,000 in bills even though you had insurance. This happened to close friends who purchased health insurance from a local broker. Cancer survival rates in many single-payer countries are not that different than in the U.S. The main difference is more explained by how much is being spent on MRIs than on the way health care is being paid for.
The other great bogeyman of the right, trial lawyers, also get blamed for our cost structure even though the cost of malpractice trials cost less than one half of one percent of our health costs in 2001. Lawyers are a nice whipping boy but the data make a lie of the basic assertion.
The suggestion that health savings accounts will solve our problem is laughable. These have been around for years now and no great mass of people are using them. In my experience, insurers do everything they can to avoid catastrophic care plans as they aren’t profitable. If these plans were going to make a difference we’d have seen evidence by now. This suggestion is merely a distraction rooted in the mythology of markets solving problems. If recent history has taught us anything it’s that markets only work to maximize the profits of the strong players at the expense of the weak. Relying on the free market to fix healthcare when it has failed to do so for generations is the classic foolishness of repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different outcome. Our system rewards insurance and drug companies at the expense of individual patients. Let’s not keep doing that.
We need a public option in our health care system. This American has lived with a single-payer system for over six years in Europe and I’d gladly exchange the junk health insurance that costs me $7,000 a year before we get a dime of coverage for a public health option again. My guess is that there are millions if not hundreds of millions of Americans who would agree.
Dave Camp, Anahola
Related headlines
- Sparks fly as council starts budget review
- Council debates solid waste strategy
- Letter for Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of kauaiworld.com.
thehumbler wrote on Jul 2, 2009 1:17 PM:
" Trial lawyers costs are the problem. Malpractice and liability consitutes almost 50% of the cost of operating under the current system. I don't know where you get your percentage figures but it in no way matches the cost to the Practitioner. And then there is the cost of liability on all the manufactures of everything from needles to medical supplies, drugs etc. European courts do not entertain these same law suits. This is why the US has so many attorneys. I suggest you return to Europe, you sound as if you need someone to take care of you! "
GILGAMESH wrote on Jul 2, 2009 5:41 PM:
" "Manawai", thank you so much for the informative responce. You are correct... "
G. Gordon Smith wrote on Jul 2, 2009 6:57 PM:
" Aloha Manawai, It is a shame, but these people who want the Government to take care of their every need at someone else's expense will not be happy until we have a system where everything is controlled by their elected officials. And they are so ignorant that they haven't the slightest idea what that will actually do to , not for them.
At least a few of those "gimme ice cream for my vote," are beginning to wake up , so that they understand that there is no "ice cream" coming from their wonderful ingratiating ,con man that we must call our President and his 40 , no 400 thieves known as Congress.
WHAT A SHAME.
I wonder how many who voted for "our President" really like the change they are getting? Personally, I'd rather keep my freedoms and let those who voted for him keep the "change". "
At least a few of those "gimme ice cream for my vote," are beginning to wake up , so that they understand that there is no "ice cream" coming from their wonderful ingratiating ,con man that we must call our President and his 40 , no 400 thieves known as Congress.
WHAT A SHAME.
I wonder how many who voted for "our President" really like the change they are getting? Personally, I'd rather keep my freedoms and let those who voted for him keep the "change". "
Dave Camp wrote on Jul 6, 2009 9:43 PM:
" For Manawai,
Starting from the bottom up.
1)I had no interest in the Super ferry and did not attend Ms. Lingle's presentation. I would not vote for her again, but shouting FU is not my style. If you have to swear, you lost the debate in my book. I'd have called her a political hack or a Stepford Governor had I been there.
2) My friend is self employed. She got stuck with $100K (error by GI on the amount) because her insurance had weasel words allowing them to deny cover for outpatient chemo. They paid extra for a chemo rider on the policy. Your assumption that she got further treatment is incorrect. No one in their right mind should buy anything from a company in Texas. That's your first clue that they'll screw you over and the law will be stacked in their favor. And how would anyone get high quality, new insurance with such a pre-existing condition? All she could get was extremely expensive stripped down coverage. Hard core republicans too. At least they were.
3) I have no problem with waiting 2 months for a non life threatening condition or a purely preventative treatment. My point is Mr. Love points to waiting lists for treatment in socialized systems. We have them here too. People with life threatening conditions don't wait in lines in Europe. And as soon as the UK upped spending by 1% or so of GDP, the waits went away for the minor surgeries and other non-life threatening items that were generating lists. If you had private cover, you could get instant treatment for those anyway.
4) The old bugbear of "responsibility" is tired, tired wingnut rhetoric. If you are happy to step over dying old people or kids on your way to church because we refuse to prioritize basic health care move to Haiti. You can have that system tomorrow. if your position is to be consistent, you have to get rid of Medicare. I'd hate for you to have to pay for some old geezer's care.
European systems are govt/private blends anyway. In Switzerland, I believe all care is via private insurance with varying levels of cover. The lowest is mandated and those who cannot pay get govt assistance. People with money are free to buy top up insurance that gets them instant care and care for items the govt or govt plans don't cover. No need for you to worry. If you've got the bucks to have the best of the American system, you can still have it. Since the current US system spends twice what Europeans countries spend, why are you so sure that costs will go up anyway?
I've read the stats on cancer. They're all over the map. Some countries do better in some areas and worse in others. Typically the Limbaughs of the world cherry pick the ones that fit their argument and ignore the rest. Other countries have drugs and poverty and people with poor diets. Yet somehow they end up with lower infant death rates, higher life expectancies that are increasing while ours is decreasing. You may not like it, but they're doing something better than we are. I realize that stings for those lost in the mythical world of all encompassing American Exceptionalism, but them's the breaks. "the inner city poor who only get treatment at the emergency room, teenage single moms who don’t seek prenatal care" -- precisely the point. The people we fail have high infant death rates. You're making my point for me. Abortion is evil, but letting inner city teenagers do without pre-natal care such that their infants die is ok? Conservatives have funny ethics.
Sure Drug cos spend a fortune on developing new drugs. No one is arguing otherwise. But why should we not use the power of group buying to purchase them at the lowest possible cost? And why would you assume a government option would refuse new drugs if they are more effective? What the drug companies fear is a large buyer than won't pay $90/month for Lipitor when generic Pravastatin Na that costs $15/month is just as effective. Or a large buyer that can't be weaseled into buying the newest NSAID even though it's no more effective than Tylenol.
But when you get right down to it, Insurance Companies make those decisions now. They all have limited formularies and will not pay for experimental drugs or those they deem too expensive. HMSA ditched lipitor on me forcing me to the generic (fine by me, I'm cheap) But I've a friend with MS and her gold plated coverage from a Fortune 500 company dropped her drugs. Now she pays $250+/mn out of pocket. Why is that acceptable to you? Because as long as you're ok, you don't care? Insurance is supposed to help you when you need it not bail on you and cancel once they have to uphold their end of the bargain.
Again, if you wish to pay up for a private policy tailored to your needs and wants, who'd be stopping you? Just admit your only real concern is the idea that money might flow from you to someone else. Fear that a govt option will crush private insurers is just a scare tactic. Private insurance is available all over Europe. And I still want to know why the private market is so weak it won't be able to offer a parallel system that is more attractive than this govt option you all seem to feel will be such a nightmare.
Using the term "socialism" as a red flag is laughable as well. We already have a socialistic system in this country. Medicare, government schools, police, fire, etc. If your only problem is the label we could call in Limbocare. My only goal is for every American to have access to basic health care at a reasonable cost. It's ridiculous that we spend double what the rest of the industrialized nations do and don't cover roughly a quarter to a half of the population adequately. If you think that's a good system, you probably thought Bush was a competent administrator.
"Malpractice and liability consitutes (sic) almost 50% of the cost of operating under the current system. I " patently false. laughably so. Talk radio brainwashing is a sad thing to witness. "I suggest you return to Europe". Nope. this is my country and I'm going to do what I can to fix the mess you and yours have made since Reagan started us down this dead end path. Perhaps you should try a third world country (or Texas) if you prefer no government. You've no right to demand others leave the US if they disagree with your fringe politics.
As for wanting other people to pay for me, don't worry. I'm well off and can pay for what I need. But I'd still like a decent health insurance policy that doesn't gouge me for crappy coverage and that doesn't raise rates 30%/year like they've been doing lately. And what I'd really like is a choice beyond our local monopoly HMSA so that we really have competition. With one player dominating, talking about market forces is just ignorant of our reality. I've tried the catastrophic care/HSA approach. HMSA did everything possible to prevent us from going this route. Fabricated pre-existing conditions, unresponsive to letters/calls and finally just blew us off. They're about the only game in town too if you don't have cover from an employer.
Thanks for the ad hominem attacks Gordon. As usual, your paranoia about government far exceeds your ability to form a cogent argument. Last time I looked Obama still had a 65% approval rating. Only the fringes are complaining. Ever wonder why none of the ideas you hold so dear don't attract much support? "
Starting from the bottom up.
1)I had no interest in the Super ferry and did not attend Ms. Lingle's presentation. I would not vote for her again, but shouting FU is not my style. If you have to swear, you lost the debate in my book. I'd have called her a political hack or a Stepford Governor had I been there.
2) My friend is self employed. She got stuck with $100K (error by GI on the amount) because her insurance had weasel words allowing them to deny cover for outpatient chemo. They paid extra for a chemo rider on the policy. Your assumption that she got further treatment is incorrect. No one in their right mind should buy anything from a company in Texas. That's your first clue that they'll screw you over and the law will be stacked in their favor. And how would anyone get high quality, new insurance with such a pre-existing condition? All she could get was extremely expensive stripped down coverage. Hard core republicans too. At least they were.
3) I have no problem with waiting 2 months for a non life threatening condition or a purely preventative treatment. My point is Mr. Love points to waiting lists for treatment in socialized systems. We have them here too. People with life threatening conditions don't wait in lines in Europe. And as soon as the UK upped spending by 1% or so of GDP, the waits went away for the minor surgeries and other non-life threatening items that were generating lists. If you had private cover, you could get instant treatment for those anyway.
4) The old bugbear of "responsibility" is tired, tired wingnut rhetoric. If you are happy to step over dying old people or kids on your way to church because we refuse to prioritize basic health care move to Haiti. You can have that system tomorrow. if your position is to be consistent, you have to get rid of Medicare. I'd hate for you to have to pay for some old geezer's care.
European systems are govt/private blends anyway. In Switzerland, I believe all care is via private insurance with varying levels of cover. The lowest is mandated and those who cannot pay get govt assistance. People with money are free to buy top up insurance that gets them instant care and care for items the govt or govt plans don't cover. No need for you to worry. If you've got the bucks to have the best of the American system, you can still have it. Since the current US system spends twice what Europeans countries spend, why are you so sure that costs will go up anyway?
I've read the stats on cancer. They're all over the map. Some countries do better in some areas and worse in others. Typically the Limbaughs of the world cherry pick the ones that fit their argument and ignore the rest. Other countries have drugs and poverty and people with poor diets. Yet somehow they end up with lower infant death rates, higher life expectancies that are increasing while ours is decreasing. You may not like it, but they're doing something better than we are. I realize that stings for those lost in the mythical world of all encompassing American Exceptionalism, but them's the breaks. "the inner city poor who only get treatment at the emergency room, teenage single moms who don’t seek prenatal care" -- precisely the point. The people we fail have high infant death rates. You're making my point for me. Abortion is evil, but letting inner city teenagers do without pre-natal care such that their infants die is ok? Conservatives have funny ethics.
Sure Drug cos spend a fortune on developing new drugs. No one is arguing otherwise. But why should we not use the power of group buying to purchase them at the lowest possible cost? And why would you assume a government option would refuse new drugs if they are more effective? What the drug companies fear is a large buyer than won't pay $90/month for Lipitor when generic Pravastatin Na that costs $15/month is just as effective. Or a large buyer that can't be weaseled into buying the newest NSAID even though it's no more effective than Tylenol.
But when you get right down to it, Insurance Companies make those decisions now. They all have limited formularies and will not pay for experimental drugs or those they deem too expensive. HMSA ditched lipitor on me forcing me to the generic (fine by me, I'm cheap) But I've a friend with MS and her gold plated coverage from a Fortune 500 company dropped her drugs. Now she pays $250+/mn out of pocket. Why is that acceptable to you? Because as long as you're ok, you don't care? Insurance is supposed to help you when you need it not bail on you and cancel once they have to uphold their end of the bargain.
Again, if you wish to pay up for a private policy tailored to your needs and wants, who'd be stopping you? Just admit your only real concern is the idea that money might flow from you to someone else. Fear that a govt option will crush private insurers is just a scare tactic. Private insurance is available all over Europe. And I still want to know why the private market is so weak it won't be able to offer a parallel system that is more attractive than this govt option you all seem to feel will be such a nightmare.
Using the term "socialism" as a red flag is laughable as well. We already have a socialistic system in this country. Medicare, government schools, police, fire, etc. If your only problem is the label we could call in Limbocare. My only goal is for every American to have access to basic health care at a reasonable cost. It's ridiculous that we spend double what the rest of the industrialized nations do and don't cover roughly a quarter to a half of the population adequately. If you think that's a good system, you probably thought Bush was a competent administrator.
"Malpractice and liability consitutes (sic) almost 50% of the cost of operating under the current system. I " patently false. laughably so. Talk radio brainwashing is a sad thing to witness. "I suggest you return to Europe". Nope. this is my country and I'm going to do what I can to fix the mess you and yours have made since Reagan started us down this dead end path. Perhaps you should try a third world country (or Texas) if you prefer no government. You've no right to demand others leave the US if they disagree with your fringe politics.
As for wanting other people to pay for me, don't worry. I'm well off and can pay for what I need. But I'd still like a decent health insurance policy that doesn't gouge me for crappy coverage and that doesn't raise rates 30%/year like they've been doing lately. And what I'd really like is a choice beyond our local monopoly HMSA so that we really have competition. With one player dominating, talking about market forces is just ignorant of our reality. I've tried the catastrophic care/HSA approach. HMSA did everything possible to prevent us from going this route. Fabricated pre-existing conditions, unresponsive to letters/calls and finally just blew us off. They're about the only game in town too if you don't have cover from an employer.
Thanks for the ad hominem attacks Gordon. As usual, your paranoia about government far exceeds your ability to form a cogent argument. Last time I looked Obama still had a 65% approval rating. Only the fringes are complaining. Ever wonder why none of the ideas you hold so dear don't attract much support? "
Dave Camp wrote on Jul 6, 2009 9:55 PM:
" You guys slay me.
No I did not swear at LL. I even voted for her once before she turned into the Stepford Governor. Never again. I didn't care about the HSF either way. Didn't attend that meeting. But don't let that stop you from trying to use guilt by association when logic fails you.
For the rest, there's really no point in arguing with the Limbots of the world. Your fear of government while overlooking the equal if not greater threat from private business is mind numbing. I just wish you'd all admit your greatest fear is your own comfortable position at the front of the line might be threatened or that a dollar might move from your pocket to someone else. Labeling those people welfare queens or lazy or illegal aliens or socialists may make you feel better but that is one of the main purposes of the conservative movement -- to justify greed.
I'm guessing most of you geezers are on Medicare anyway. Pretty amusing hypocrisy. "
No I did not swear at LL. I even voted for her once before she turned into the Stepford Governor. Never again. I didn't care about the HSF either way. Didn't attend that meeting. But don't let that stop you from trying to use guilt by association when logic fails you.
For the rest, there's really no point in arguing with the Limbots of the world. Your fear of government while overlooking the equal if not greater threat from private business is mind numbing. I just wish you'd all admit your greatest fear is your own comfortable position at the front of the line might be threatened or that a dollar might move from your pocket to someone else. Labeling those people welfare queens or lazy or illegal aliens or socialists may make you feel better but that is one of the main purposes of the conservative movement -- to justify greed.
I'm guessing most of you geezers are on Medicare anyway. Pretty amusing hypocrisy. "
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
RSS
manawai wrote on Jul 2, 2009 9:52 AM:
I believe that the real challenge our current healthcare system faces is due to the success of our medical technology, i.e. the high cost of the superior medical services available here. The level of medical technology in the U. S. is the highest in the world. This high technology, however, comes at a cost. The years or decades of research and development (R&D) of drugs and treatments represent huge monetary investments on the part of the developing corporations. Once developed, these results must go through extensive trials to (hopefully) prove their suitability and safety for use. Only then can the developer bring their product to market, begin to recover their costs, and to make a profit on their investment. Profits are not always forthcoming since other companies may develop competing and superior products. So, there are the years of underwriting investment/costs with the possibility of little or no return on that investment. There is also the possibility of tremendous legal liability if unintended consequences of the treatment or drug are subsequently realized. The examples of this are legion. All this results in successful drugs and treatments costing far more than the uninformed might imagine. It also places the responsibility for generating profits to pay for R&D investments and costs upon those treatments and drugs which do yield successful results. But without a considerable return on investment in medical technology there will be no such investment and, therefore, no R&D and no new technology.
A government run healthcare system ultimately will not solve the problem outlined above. If the proposed system forces medical service providers and product manufacturers to receive less than an adequate return on their investment (investment like years of medical school, continued education and training), then we will lose practitioners and have a lower rate of technological advancement. In the long run this is unacceptable so another fiscally reasonable alternative is necessary. That can only be government subsidy of medicinal services and I guess we call know where the government will get the additional funds to do this. It can’t borrow forever to do this so raising taxes is the only reasonable alternative. The unreasonable alternatives in my opinion are reduced medical care or government ownership of all aspects of the medicine including R&D, i.e. socialism: the ownership and control of the means of production and the delivery of services. Is this your ultimate goal Mr. Camp? Socialsm? After all, you say things like, “…it’s that markets only work to maximize the profits of the strong players at the expense of the weak.”
PS – For Mr. Camp to say that Americans are less happy with their healthcare systems than people of Western Europe or even Canada is like parents blaming teachers for their children’s substandard test results when they do absolutely at home nothing to support their education. That mentality, apparently shared by Mr. Camp, is so prevalent here. That’s called passing the buck and shirking responsibility. The typical reasoning of many here is, “My problems are all caused by someone else! I’m not responsible for the consequences of my own choices!” Sound familiar, Mr. Camp? It’s interesting how Mr. Camp blames our current healthcare system and not his choice of HMO’s and where he chooses to live, for his having to wait 6 weeks for a routine colonoscopy. I guess he would like to have a State hospital built in every neighborhood on Kauai and to offer all such services so he can do walk-in colon exams at will. What a kick! There isn’t any system that will do that, bro! Your choice to live in the country means some things aren’t available on your concept of a timely basis…or even at all.
Mr. Camp, you should look at and learn from last year’s study of world cancer survival rates which determine that survival rates and disparities are based on a number of variables and not simply the country’s healthcare system. Money spent on cancer survival (obviously the country’s focus on certain types of cancer) varied as did the results. The study was purportedly carried out by more than 100 scientists across the world led by Professor Michel Coleman, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Search for the BBC News’ article: “Huge gap in world cancer survival“.
I am sorry for your friend who contracted cancer, but your statement was misleading as I’m certain his cancer treatment continued to be covered under his current insurance even though they may have cancelled coverage for any new problems arising unrelated to his/her cancer.
And was it really you who stormed out of the recent [2007] meeting shouting at high decibels “F--- you, Linda Lingle.” How mature! "