Re: another health-care article

[Guest guest]

Ok, so Britain's program may not be perfect. (Of course, ours is the best... :>0 )

What about other countries like France or the Scandanavian countries?? Are they also in such a mess?

And I'm guessing a lot of folks in Britain who would not have had ANY heathcare are alive today and contributing to their families and communities precisely because they had access to the national program.

There is surely a way to put together a program that works and is fare to both participants and their providers. That's the vision I keep percolating in my mind and heart.

Just another take on the subject.

A DC

[Guest guest]

"Free" health care for all is not on the table. Like Medicare, everyone would have to pay something for care. That makes sense: " pearl of great price is not to be had for the asking," sort of thing. Under O's plan, like Medicare, not everything would be available, but it would be a safety net that would keep you alive. Also, the public insurer would have to, by law, play with the same ground rules as the privates. The article in the washington examiner may have more of a biased view than the WHO analysis of national health care rankings and expenses:http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.htmlAs it is now, those of us who have insurance are subsidizing all of those who do not with expensive and inefficient health care services. Everybody in the pool will make it cheaper for each one of us. In the big picture, sick care inefficiencies will just drive more people to wellness care. That's where we need to put our noggins, trying to figure out how to capitalize on that emerging market. Sears, DC, IAYT2609 NW ThurmanPortland, Oregon 97210v: 503-225-0255f: 503-525-6902www.docbones.comOn Jul 3, 2009, at 7:35 AM, cosmo wrote: From http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Obamacare-failed-in-Europe-7900839-49458267.html "This is precisely what happened in Britain. The state provides most health care, via the National Health Service. Patients have almost no say over which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use, while professionals have to conform to government plans and targets. After its birth in 1948, planners soon found that "free" health care multiplied demand. NHS founder Lord Beveridge predicted free health care would cut spending as health improved.The opposite was true. Between 1949 and 1979, it tripled in real terms. The service now costs twice as much as it did 10 years ago, with productivity down 4.5 percent.One way government tries to limit demand is to decree which new drugs can be prescribed. Many drugs, widely available in America and continental Europe, are denied to British patients.State mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on average causing 8.6 weeks of waiting. Once inside, budgetary cutbacks on cleaning and maintenance mean higher rates of an antibiotic-resistant variety of staph infection. This "superbug" has turned even routine surgery into a lottery of death." Seems like 'free health care for everyone' hasn't worked out as planned. What can US policy makers learn from these mistakes? J. Pedersen DC

[Guest guest]

For social engineers, history began this morning.

No matter how often you point to failed policies of socialism in Europe, they will deride you as if you are just a stick in the mud naysayer who is not open to new ideas.

E. Abrahamson, D.C.

Chiropractic physician

Lake Oswego Chiropractic Clinic

315 Second Street

Lake Oswego, OR 97034

503-635-6246

Website: http://www.lakeoswegochiro.com

On 7/3/09 7:35 AM, " cosmo " <chirodoc1@...> wrote:

From http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Obamacare-failed-in-Europe-7900839-49458267.html

" This is precisely what happened in Britain. The state provides most health care, via the National Health Service. Patients have almost no say over which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use, while professionals have to conform to government plans and targets.

After its birth in 1948, planners soon found that " free " health care multiplied demand. NHS founder Lord Beveridge predicted free health care would cut spending as health improved.

The opposite was true. Between 1949 and 1979, it tripled in real terms. The service now costs twice as much as it did 10 years ago, with productivity down 4.5 percent.

One way government tries to limit demand is to decree which new drugs can be prescribed. Many drugs, widely available in America and continental Europe, are denied to British patients.

State mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on average causing 8.6 weeks of waiting. Once inside, budgetary cutbacks on cleaning and maintenance mean higher rates of an antibiotic-resistant variety of staph infection. This " superbug " has turned even routine surgery into a lottery of death. "

Seems like 'free health care for everyone' hasn't worked out as planned. What can US policy makers learn from these mistakes?

J. Pedersen DC

[Guest guest]

For social engineers, history began this morning.

No matter how often you point to failed policies of socialism in Europe, they will deride you as if you are just a stick in the mud naysayer who is not open to new ideas.

E. Abrahamson, D.C.

Chiropractic physician

Lake Oswego Chiropractic Clinic

315 Second Street

Lake Oswego, OR 97034

503-635-6246

Website: http://www.lakeoswegochiro.com

On 7/3/09 7:35 AM, " cosmo " <chirodoc1@...> wrote:

From http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Obamacare-failed-in-Europe-7900839-49458267.html

" This is precisely what happened in Britain. The state provides most health care, via the National Health Service. Patients have almost no say over which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use, while professionals have to conform to government plans and targets.

After its birth in 1948, planners soon found that " free " health care multiplied demand. NHS founder Lord Beveridge predicted free health care would cut spending as health improved.

The opposite was true. Between 1949 and 1979, it tripled in real terms. The service now costs twice as much as it did 10 years ago, with productivity down 4.5 percent.

One way government tries to limit demand is to decree which new drugs can be prescribed. Many drugs, widely available in America and continental Europe, are denied to British patients.

State mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on average causing 8.6 weeks of waiting. Once inside, budgetary cutbacks on cleaning and maintenance mean higher rates of an antibiotic-resistant variety of staph infection. This " superbug " has turned even routine surgery into a lottery of death. "

Seems like 'free health care for everyone' hasn't worked out as planned. What can US policy makers learn from these mistakes?

J. Pedersen DC

[Guest guest]

As far as caring for everyone:

If you think there is good in everybody, you haven't met everybody.

HAHA!

On 7/3/09 10:25 AM, " bluepearl2001@... " <bluepearl2001@...> wrote:

Ok, so Britain's program may not be perfect. (Of course, ours is the best... :>0 )

What about other countries like France or the Scandanavian countries?? Are they also in such a mess?

And I'm guessing a lot of folks in Britain who would not have had ANY heathcare are alive today and contributing to their families and communities precisely because they had access to the national program.

There is surely a way to put together a program that works and is fare to both participants and their providers. That's the vision I keep percolating in my mind and heart.

Just another take on the subject.

A DC

[Guest guest]

As far as caring for everyone:

If you think there is good in everybody, you haven't met everybody.

HAHA!

On 7/3/09 10:25 AM, " bluepearl2001@... " <bluepearl2001@...> wrote:

Ok, so Britain's program may not be perfect. (Of course, ours is the best... :>0 )

What about other countries like France or the Scandanavian countries?? Are they also in such a mess?

And I'm guessing a lot of folks in Britain who would not have had ANY heathcare are alive today and contributing to their families and communities precisely because they had access to the national program.

There is surely a way to put together a program that works and is fare to both participants and their providers. That's the vision I keep percolating in my mind and heart.

Just another take on the subject.

A DC

[Guest guest]

Health Care is a complex social entity. Rather than looking for a system in the world that gleams with perfection we may want to be realistic. Improvement, affordability and access are the keypoints in rectifying our current system. Nobody said we will take a European plan and cut and paste it to American policy.

We can improve our system and are finally taking steps toward that. Looking at policies throughout the world that -despite their imperfections- are superior to ours in regards to these keypoints is essential.

Nowhere have the policies failed their people more than Health Care in the United States.

ph Medlin D.C.Spine Tree Chiropractic1607 NE Alberta StPDX, OR 97211503-788-6800

Re: another health-care article

For social engineers, history began this morning.No matter how often you point to failed policies of socialism in Europe, they will deride you as if you are just a stick in the mud naysayer who is not open to new ideas. E. Abrahamson, D.C.Chiropractic physicianLake Oswego Chiropractic Clinic315 Second StreetLake Oswego, OR 97034503-635-6246Website: http://www.lakeoswegochiro.comOn 7/3/09 7:35 AM, "cosmo" <chirodoc1comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

From http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Obamacare-failed-in-Europe-7900839-49458267.html"This is precisely what happened in Britain. The state provides most health care, via the National Health Service. Patients have almost no say over which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use, while professionals have to conform to government plans and targets.

After its birth in 1948, planners soon found that "free" health care multiplied demand. NHS founder Lord Beveridge predicted free health care would cut spending as health improved. The opposite was true. Between 1949 and 1979, it tripled in real terms. The service now costs twice as much as it did 10 years ago, with productivity down 4.5 percent. One way government tries to limit demand is to decree which new drugs can be prescribed. Many drugs, widely available in America and continental Europe, are denied to British patients. State mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on average causing 8.6 weeks of waiting. Once inside, budgetary cutbacks on cleaning and maintenance mean higher rates of an antibiotic-resistant variety of staph infection. This "superbug" has turned even routine surgery into a lottery of death." Seems like 'free health care for everyone' hasn't worked out as planned. What can US policy makers learn from these mistakes? J. Pedersen DC

[Guest guest]

Health Care is a complex social entity. Rather than looking for a system in the world that gleams with perfection we may want to be realistic. Improvement, affordability and access are the keypoints in rectifying our current system. Nobody said we will take a European plan and cut and paste it to American policy.

We can improve our system and are finally taking steps toward that. Looking at policies throughout the world that -despite their imperfections- are superior to ours in regards to these keypoints is essential.

Nowhere have the policies failed their people more than Health Care in the United States.

ph Medlin D.C.Spine Tree Chiropractic1607 NE Alberta StPDX, OR 97211503-788-6800

Re: another health-care article

For social engineers, history began this morning.No matter how often you point to failed policies of socialism in Europe, they will deride you as if you are just a stick in the mud naysayer who is not open to new ideas. E. Abrahamson, D.C.Chiropractic physicianLake Oswego Chiropractic Clinic315 Second StreetLake Oswego, OR 97034503-635-6246Website: http://www.lakeoswegochiro.comOn 7/3/09 7:35 AM, "cosmo" <chirodoc1comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

From http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Obamacare-failed-in-Europe-7900839-49458267.html"This is precisely what happened in Britain. The state provides most health care, via the National Health Service. Patients have almost no say over which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use, while professionals have to conform to government plans and targets.

After its birth in 1948, planners soon found that "free" health care multiplied demand. NHS founder Lord Beveridge predicted free health care would cut spending as health improved. The opposite was true. Between 1949 and 1979, it tripled in real terms. The service now costs twice as much as it did 10 years ago, with productivity down 4.5 percent. One way government tries to limit demand is to decree which new drugs can be prescribed. Many drugs, widely available in America and continental Europe, are denied to British patients. State mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on average causing 8.6 weeks of waiting. Once inside, budgetary cutbacks on cleaning and maintenance mean higher rates of an antibiotic-resistant variety of staph infection. This "superbug" has turned even routine surgery into a lottery of death." Seems like 'free health care for everyone' hasn't worked out as planned. What can US policy makers learn from these mistakes? J. Pedersen DC

[Guest guest]

Add to the key point list "patient accountability".

Right now, there is essentially NO patient accountability that I can put my finger on. I have always felt that if people were asked to make changes to improve their personal health profile, and they did so, there should be a carrot in the form of a reduction of premiums. Statistically, those folks will be less of a drag on healthcare dollars. The cost of 'prevention' is money well spent. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". Check folks twice a year or quarterly (?) and keep the accountability on the front burner.

And for those who choose not to make changes and remain at high risk for diseases that suck up healthcare dollars, their premiums are increased. And, yes, this would have to be on a patient-by-patient basis, taking into account individual differences. Gee, I guess that means doctors would have to be more involved in their patients' lives. Not just jotting down Rx's... I think in "the old days", we called this Preventative Medicine.

It ought to be possible to come up with a standard health exam protocol with lab/measurements/imaging that could pretty accurately identify those at risk and could easily quantify improvements when the patient makes an effort to follow-up on recommended lifestyle changes.

In other words, "the system" should have expectations. And when patients' pocketbooks are affected by whether or not they (and their families) are on a road toward better health, we will have a healthier population. And, it follows--at least in my mind--that we would end up with a healthcare system that creates a happier, less stressed and more productive and vibrant population, as well an actual HEALTHcare delivery system that is less expensive in cost.

Ann DC

Re: another health-care article

Health Care is a complex social entity. Rather than looking for a system in the world that gleams with perfection we may want to be realistic. Improvement, affordability and access are the keypoints in rectifying our current system. Nobody said we will take a European plan and cut and paste it to American policy.

We can improve our system and are finally taking steps toward that. Looking at policies throughout the world that -despite their imperfections- are superior to ours in regards to these keypoints is essential.

Nowhere have the policies failed their people more than Health Care in the United States.

ph Medlin D.C.

Spine Tree Chiropractic

1607 NE Alberta St

PDX, OR 97211

503-788-6800

Re: another health-care article

For social engineers, history began this morning.

No matter how often you point to failed policies of socialism in Europe, they will deride you as if you are just a stick in the mud naysayer who is not open to new ideas.

E. Abrahamson, D.C.

Chiropractic physician

Lake Oswego Chiropractic Clinic

315 Second Street

Lake Oswego, OR 97034

503-635-6246

Website: http://www.lakeoswegochiro.com

On 7/3/09 7:35 AM, "cosmo" <chirodoc1comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

From http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Obamacare-failed-in-Europe-7900839-49458267.html

"This is precisely what happened in Britain. The state provides most health care, via the National Health Service. Patients have almost no say over which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use, while professionals have to conform to government plans and targets.

After its birth in 1948, planners soon found that "free" health care multiplied demand. NHS founder Lord Beveridge predicted free health care would cut spending as health improved.

The opposite was true. Between 1949 and 1979, it tripled in real terms. The service now costs twice as much as it did 10 years ago, with productivity down 4.5 percent.

One way government tries to limit demand is to decree which new drugs can be prescribed. Many drugs, widely available in America and continental Europe, are denied to British patients.

State mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on average causing 8.6 weeks of waiting. Once inside, budgetary cutbacks on cleaning and maintenance mean higher rates of an antibiotic-resistant variety of staph infection. This "superbug" has turned even routine surgery into a lottery of death."

Seems like 'free health care for everyone' hasn't worked out as planned. What can US policy makers learn from these mistakes?

J. Pedersen DC

Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com

[Guest guest]

From: Kehr

[mailto:jkehr@...]

Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 3:15

PM

'bluepearl2001@...'

Subject: RE:

another health-care article

Now I’m in agreement. Lets call

this patient and government accountability. The plan has to bring about

certain goals and meet certain timelines in order to stay in effect. If

we can actually hold people accountable in any plan we are all

successful. I have to say that any plan teaching patients to be more

responsible must include chiropractic. Of course this noble idea is very

difficult to implement. Can we as doctors tell patients their premiums

are going to go up because they did not follow our guidelines. There are

consequences for our actions, and that needs to hold true for a government

program. At what point are costs out of control and at what point do we

scrap an ineffective program.

Kehr

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of bluepearl2001@...

Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 12:14

PM

spinetree@...;

Subject: Re:

another health-care article

Add to the key point

list " patient accountability " .

Right now, there is essentially NO patient accountability that I can put

my finger on. I have always felt that if people were asked to make

changes to improve their personal health profile, and they did so, there

should be a carrot in the form of a reduction of premiums. Statistically,

those folks will be less of a drag on healthcare dollars. The cost

of 'prevention' is money well spent. " An ounce of

prevention is worth a pound of cure " . Check folks twice

a year or quarterly (?) and keep the accountability on the front

burner.

And for those who choose not to make changes and remain at high risk for

diseases that suck up healthcare dollars, their premiums are increased.

And, yes, this would have to be on a patient-by-patient basis, taking into

account individual differences. Gee, I guess that means doctors would have to

be more involved in their patients' lives. Not just jotting down

Rx's... I think in " the old days " , we called this Preventative

Medicine.

It ought to be possible to come up with a standard health exam protocol with

lab/measurements/imaging that could pretty accurately identify

those at risk and could easily quantify improvements when the patient

makes an effort to follow-up on recommended lifestyle changes.

In other words, " the system " should have expectations. And

when patients' pocketbooks are affected by whether or not they (and their

families) are on a road toward better health, we will have a healthier

population. And, it follows--at least in my mind--that we would end up

with a healthcare system that creates a happier, less stressed and more

productive and vibrant population, as well an actual HEALTHcare delivery system

that is less expensive in cost.

Ann DC

Re: another health-care article

Health Care is a complex social entity. Rather than looking for a

system in the world that gleams with perfection we may want to be realistic.

Improvement, affordability and access are the keypoints in rectifying our

current system. Nobody said we will take a European plan and cut and paste it

to American policy.

We can improve our system and are finally taking steps toward that.

Looking at policies throughout the world that -despite their imperfections- are

superior to ours in regards to these keypoints is essential.

Nowhere have the policies failed their people more than Health Care in

the United States.

ph Medlin D.C.

Spine Tree Chiropractic

1607 NE Alberta St

PDX, OR 97211

503-788-6800

Re: [From

OregonDCs] another health-care article

For social engineers, history began

this morning.

No matter how often you point to failed policies of socialism in Europe, they will deride you as if you are just a stick

in the mud naysayer who is not open to new ideas.

E. Abrahamson, D.C.

Chiropractic physician

Lake Oswego

Chiropractic Clinic

315 Second Street

Lake Oswego, OR 97034

503-635-6246

Website: http://www.lakeoswegochiro.com

On 7/3/09 7:35 AM, " cosmo " <chirodoc1comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

From http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Obamacare-failed-in-Europe-7900839-49458267.html

" This is precisely what happened in Britain. The state provides most

health care, via the National Health Service. Patients have almost no say over

which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use, while professionals have to

conform to government plans and targets.

After its birth in 1948, planners soon found that " free " health care

multiplied demand. NHS founder Lord Beveridge predicted free health care would

cut spending as health improved.

The opposite was true. Between 1949 and 1979, it tripled in real terms. The

service now costs twice as much as it did 10 years ago, with productivity down

4.5 percent.

One way government tries to limit demand is to decree which new drugs can be

prescribed. Many drugs, widely available in America

and continental Europe, are denied to British

patients.

State mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on average

causing 8.6 weeks of waiting. Once inside, budgetary cutbacks on cleaning and

maintenance mean higher rates of an antibiotic-resistant variety of staph

infection. This " superbug " has turned even routine surgery into a

lottery of death. "

Seems like 'free health care for everyone' hasn't worked out as planned.

What can US policy makers learn from these mistakes?

J. Pedersen DC

Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com

[Guest guest]

From: Kehr

[mailto:jkehr@...]

Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 3:15

PM

'bluepearl2001@...'

Subject: RE:

another health-care article

Now I’m in agreement. Lets call

this patient and government accountability. The plan has to bring about

certain goals and meet certain timelines in order to stay in effect. If

we can actually hold people accountable in any plan we are all

successful. I have to say that any plan teaching patients to be more

responsible must include chiropractic. Of course this noble idea is very

difficult to implement. Can we as doctors tell patients their premiums

are going to go up because they did not follow our guidelines. There are

consequences for our actions, and that needs to hold true for a government

program. At what point are costs out of control and at what point do we

scrap an ineffective program.

Kehr

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of bluepearl2001@...

Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 12:14

PM

spinetree@...;

Subject: Re:

another health-care article

Add to the key point

list " patient accountability " .

Right now, there is essentially NO patient accountability that I can put

my finger on. I have always felt that if people were asked to make

changes to improve their personal health profile, and they did so, there

should be a carrot in the form of a reduction of premiums. Statistically,

those folks will be less of a drag on healthcare dollars. The cost

of 'prevention' is money well spent. " An ounce of

prevention is worth a pound of cure " . Check folks twice

a year or quarterly (?) and keep the accountability on the front

burner.

And for those who choose not to make changes and remain at high risk for

diseases that suck up healthcare dollars, their premiums are increased.

And, yes, this would have to be on a patient-by-patient basis, taking into

account individual differences. Gee, I guess that means doctors would have to

be more involved in their patients' lives. Not just jotting down

Rx's... I think in " the old days " , we called this Preventative

Medicine.

It ought to be possible to come up with a standard health exam protocol with

lab/measurements/imaging that could pretty accurately identify

those at risk and could easily quantify improvements when the patient

makes an effort to follow-up on recommended lifestyle changes.

In other words, " the system " should have expectations. And

when patients' pocketbooks are affected by whether or not they (and their

families) are on a road toward better health, we will have a healthier

population. And, it follows--at least in my mind--that we would end up

with a healthcare system that creates a happier, less stressed and more

productive and vibrant population, as well an actual HEALTHcare delivery system

that is less expensive in cost.

Ann DC

Re: another health-care article

Health Care is a complex social entity. Rather than looking for a

system in the world that gleams with perfection we may want to be realistic.

Improvement, affordability and access are the keypoints in rectifying our

current system. Nobody said we will take a European plan and cut and paste it

to American policy.

We can improve our system and are finally taking steps toward that.

Looking at policies throughout the world that -despite their imperfections- are

superior to ours in regards to these keypoints is essential.

Nowhere have the policies failed their people more than Health Care in

the United States.

ph Medlin D.C.

Spine Tree Chiropractic

1607 NE Alberta St

PDX, OR 97211

503-788-6800

Re: [From

OregonDCs] another health-care article

For social engineers, history began

this morning.

No matter how often you point to failed policies of socialism in Europe, they will deride you as if you are just a stick

in the mud naysayer who is not open to new ideas.

E. Abrahamson, D.C.

Chiropractic physician

Lake Oswego

Chiropractic Clinic

315 Second Street

Lake Oswego, OR 97034

503-635-6246

Website: http://www.lakeoswegochiro.com

On 7/3/09 7:35 AM, " cosmo " <chirodoc1comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

From http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Obamacare-failed-in-Europe-7900839-49458267.html

" This is precisely what happened in Britain. The state provides most

health care, via the National Health Service. Patients have almost no say over

which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use, while professionals have to

conform to government plans and targets.

After its birth in 1948, planners soon found that " free " health care

multiplied demand. NHS founder Lord Beveridge predicted free health care would

cut spending as health improved.

The opposite was true. Between 1949 and 1979, it tripled in real terms. The

service now costs twice as much as it did 10 years ago, with productivity down

4.5 percent.

One way government tries to limit demand is to decree which new drugs can be

prescribed. Many drugs, widely available in America

and continental Europe, are denied to British

patients.

State mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on average

causing 8.6 weeks of waiting. Once inside, budgetary cutbacks on cleaning and

maintenance mean higher rates of an antibiotic-resistant variety of staph

infection. This " superbug " has turned even routine surgery into a

lottery of death. "

Seems like 'free health care for everyone' hasn't worked out as planned.

What can US policy makers learn from these mistakes?

J. Pedersen DC

Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com

[Guest guest]

It's a conundrum. But as we so often hear, we put men on the moon, we can surely figure out how to do this. It's a matter of will with a sprinkling of compassion.

Ann

Re: another health-care article

Health Care is a complex social entity. Rather than looking for a system in the world that gleams with perfection we may want to be realistic. Improvement, affordability and access are the keypoints in rectifying our current system. Nobody said we will take a European plan and cut and paste it to American policy.

We can improve our system and are finally taking steps toward that. Looking at policies throughout the world that -despite their imperfections- are superior to ours in regards to these keypoints is essential.

Nowhere have the policies failed their people more than Health Care in the United States.

ph Medlin D.C.

Spine Tree Chiropractic

1607 NE Alberta St

PDX, OR 97211

503-788-6800

Re: another health-care article

For social engineers, history began this morning.

No matter how often you point to failed policies of socialism in Europe, they will deride you as if you are just a stick in the mud naysayer who is not open to new ideas.

E. Abrahamson, D.C.

Chiropractic physician

Lake Oswego Chiropractic Clinic

315 Second Street

Lake Oswego, OR 97034

503-635-6246

Website: http://www.lakeoswegochiro.com

On 7/3/09 7:35 AM, "cosmo" <chirodoc1comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

From http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Obamacare-failed-in-Europe-7900839-49458267.html

"This is precisely what happened in Britain. The state provides most health care, via the National Health Service. Patients have almost no say over which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use, while professionals have to conform to government plans and targets.

After its birth in 1948, planners soon found that "free" health care multiplied demand. NHS founder Lord Beveridge predicted free health care would cut spending as health improved.

The opposite was true. Between 1949 and 1979, it tripled in real terms. The service now costs twice as much as it did 10 years ago, with productivity down 4.5 percent.

One way government tries to limit demand is to decree which new drugs can be prescribed. Many drugs, widely available in America and continental Europe, are denied to British patients.

State mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on average causing 8.6 weeks of waiting. Once inside, budgetary cutbacks on cleaning and maintenance mean higher rates of an antib

iotic-resistant variety of staph infection. This "superbug" has turned even routine surgery into a lottery of death."

Seems like 'free health care for everyone' hasn't worked out as planned. What can US policy makers learn from these mistakes?

J. Pedersen DC

Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com

Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com

[Guest guest]

It's a conundrum. But as we so often hear, we put men on the moon, we can surely figure out how to do this. It's a matter of will with a sprinkling of compassion.

Ann

Re: another health-care article

Health Care is a complex social entity. Rather than looking for a system in the world that gleams with perfection we may want to be realistic. Improvement, affordability and access are the keypoints in rectifying our current system. Nobody said we will take a European plan and cut and paste it to American policy.

We can improve our system and are finally taking steps toward that. Looking at policies throughout the world that -despite their imperfections- are superior to ours in regards to these keypoints is essential.

Nowhere have the policies failed their people more than Health Care in the United States.

ph Medlin D.C.

Spine Tree Chiropractic

1607 NE Alberta St

PDX, OR 97211

503-788-6800

Re: another health-care article

For social engineers, history began this morning.

No matter how often you point to failed policies of socialism in Europe, they will deride you as if you are just a stick in the mud naysayer who is not open to new ideas.

E. Abrahamson, D.C.

Chiropractic physician

Lake Oswego Chiropractic Clinic

315 Second Street

Lake Oswego, OR 97034

503-635-6246

Website: http://www.lakeoswegochiro.com

On 7/3/09 7:35 AM, "cosmo" <chirodoc1comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

From http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Obamacare-failed-in-Europe-7900839-49458267.html

"This is precisely what happened in Britain. The state provides most health care, via the National Health Service. Patients have almost no say over which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use, while professionals have to conform to government plans and targets.

After its birth in 1948, planners soon found that "free" health care multiplied demand. NHS founder Lord Beveridge predicted free health care would cut spending as health improved.

The opposite was true. Between 1949 and 1979, it tripled in real terms. The service now costs twice as much as it did 10 years ago, with productivity down 4.5 percent.

One way government tries to limit demand is to decree which new drugs can be prescribed. Many drugs, widely available in America and continental Europe, are denied to British patients.

State mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on average causing 8.6 weeks of waiting. Once inside, budgetary cutbacks on cleaning and maintenance mean higher rates of an antib

iotic-resistant variety of staph infection. This "superbug" has turned even routine surgery into a lottery of death."

Seems like 'free health care for everyone' hasn't worked out as planned. What can US policy makers learn from these mistakes?

J. Pedersen DC

Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com

Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com

[Guest guest]

Our 'free' system is about employing as many people as possible. Had an MD recently tell me that the reason we weren't included was that we didn't 'spread the wealth' to numerous other practitioners. Not one word about getting a person well.

Sunny

Sunny Kierstyn, RN DC Fibromyalgia Care Center of Oregon 2677 Willakenzie Road, 7C

Eugene, Oregon, 97401

541- 344- 0509; Fx; 541- 344- 0955

drscott@...; chirodoc1@...; From: pdxchiroguy@...Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 07:26:05 -0700Subject: Re: another health-care article

Yet somehow, with all these problems, their outcomes are better than ours here in the US, and they do it at half the cost. HALF THE COST!? How could it be that the free market has led us to such an expensive and inefficient mess? We have the illusion that we pay more, but are getting some sort of "Cadillac" system. This could not be further from the case. You present those numbers without noting that most, if not all of those statistics are worse here in the US with our "free" system. Lindekugel, DCConcordia Chiropractic Center5425 NE 33rd AvePortland OR 97211

From: "drscottlakeoswegochiro" <drscottlakeoswegochiro>cosmo <chirodoc1comcast (DOT) net>; or < >Sent: Friday, July 3, 2009 9:16:37 AMSubject: Re: another health-care article

For social engineers, history began this morning.No matter how often you point to failed policies of socialism in Europe, they will deride you as if you are just a stick in the mud naysayer who is not open to new ideas. E. Abrahamson, D.C.Chiropractic physicianLake Oswego Chiropractic Clinic315 Second StreetLake Oswego, OR 97034503-635-6246Website: http://www.lakeoswegochiro.comOn 7/3/09 7:35 AM, "cosmo" <chirodoc1comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

From http://www.washingt onexaminer. com/opinion/ columns/OpEd- Contributor/ Obamacare- failed-in- Europe-7900839- 49458267. html"This is precisely what happened in Britain. The state provides most health care, via the National Health Service. Patients have almost no say over which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use, while professionals have to conform to government plans and targets.

After its birth in 1948, planners soon found that "free" health care multiplied demand. NHS founder Lord Beveridge predicted free health care would cut spending as health improved. The opposite was true. Between 1949 and 1979, it tripled in real terms. The service now costs twice as much as it did 10 years ago, with productivity down 4.5 percent. One way government tries to limit demand is to decree which new drugs can be prescribed. Many drugs, widely available in America and continental Europe, are denied to British patients. State mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on average causing 8.6 weeks of waiting. Once inside, budgetary cutbacks on cleaning and maintenance mean higher rates of an antibiotic-resistan t variety of staph infection. This "superbug" has turned even routine surgery into a lottery of death." Seems like 'free health care for everyone' hasn't worked out as planned. What can US policy makers learn from these mistakes? J. Pedersen DC

Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. Check it out.

[Guest guest]

Our healthcare system has not been run on a true free market. Insurance companies do not allow it to be so. Insurance companies are a form of communal wealth re-distribution, where everyone pays into the pot but only a few will ever take out of the pot. MD's and hospitals have figured out ways to pull out of the pot better than the rest of us. A true free market would not have insurance companies involved. It would be patients paying for goods and services that come directly from the providers. That is where the free market would fix everything. Who would pay $800/month out of pocket for drugs that aren't really fixing the problem? Who would pay $25,000 for a discectomy out of their pocket when they could treat it with more conservative methods? Who would pay $75,000 for a triple bypass out of their pocket when they could just change their lifestyle? Who would pay $15,000 to have a colostomy, when they could just change to a healthier diet? (I'm guessing on these costs) Insurance companies allow the wool to be pulled over people's eyes as to the true cost of their "healthcare". In a true free market people would actually pay for what they get. Simple, clean, responsible, empowering. Dr. Jamey DysonAdvanced Chiropractic1295 Wallace Rd NWSalem, OR 97304503-361-3949drjdyson1@... On Jul 7, 2009, at 7:26 AM, Lindekugel wrote:Yet somehow, with all these problems, their outcomes are better than ours here in the US, and they do it at half the cost. HALF THE COST!? How could it be that the free market has led us to such an expensive and inefficient mess? We have the illusion that we pay more, but are getting some sort of "Cadillac" system. This could not be further from the case. You present those numbers without noting that most, if not all of those statistics are worse here in the US with our "free" system. Lindekugel, DCConcordia Chiropractic Center5425 NE 33rd AvePortland OR 97211From: "drscottlakeoswegochiro" <drscottlakeoswegochiro>cosmo <chirodoc1comcast (DOT) net>; or < >Sent: Friday, July 3, 2009 9:16:37 AMSubject: Re: another health-care articleFor social engineers, history began this morning.No matter how often you point to failed policies of socialism in Europe, they will deride you as if you are just a stick in the mud naysayer who is not open to new ideas. E. Abrahamson, D.C.Chiropractic physicianLake Oswego Chiropractic Clinic315 Second StreetLake Oswego, OR 97034503-635-6246Website: http://www.lakeoswegochiro.comOn 7/3/09 7:35 AM, "cosmo" <chirodoc1comcast (DOT) net> wrote: From http://www.washingt onexaminer. com/opinion/ columns/OpEd- Contributor/ Obamacare- failed-in- Europe-7900839- 49458267. html"This is precisely what happened in Britain. The state provides most health care, via the National Health Service. Patients have almost no say over which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use, while professionals have to conform to government plans and targets. After its birth in 1948, planners soon found that "free" health care multiplied demand. NHS founder Lord Beveridge predicted free health care would cut spending as health improved. The opposite was true. Between 1949 and 1979, it tripled in real terms. The service now costs twice as much as it did 10 years ago, with productivity down 4.5 percent. One way government tries to limit demand is to decree which new drugs can be prescribed. Many drugs, widely available in America and continental Europe, are denied to British patients. State mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on average causing 8.6 weeks of waiting. Once inside, budgetary cutbacks on cleaning and maintenance mean higher rates of an antibiotic-resistan t variety of staph infection. This "superbug" has turned even routine surgery into a lottery of death." Seems like 'free health care for everyone' hasn't worked out as planned. What can US policy makers learn from these mistakes? J. Pedersen DC

[Guest guest]

Our healthcare system has not been run on a true free market. Insurance companies do not allow it to be so. Insurance companies are a form of communal wealth re-distribution, where everyone pays into the pot but only a few will ever take out of the pot. MD's and hospitals have figured out ways to pull out of the pot better than the rest of us. A true free market would not have insurance companies involved. It would be patients paying for goods and services that come directly from the providers. That is where the free market would fix everything. Who would pay $800/month out of pocket for drugs that aren't really fixing the problem? Who would pay $25,000 for a discectomy out of their pocket when they could treat it with more conservative methods? Who would pay $75,000 for a triple bypass out of their pocket when they could just change their lifestyle? Who would pay $15,000 to have a colostomy, when they could just change to a healthier diet? (I'm guessing on these costs) Insurance companies allow the wool to be pulled over people's eyes as to the true cost of their "healthcare". In a true free market people would actually pay for what they get. Simple, clean, responsible, empowering. Dr. Jamey DysonAdvanced Chiropractic1295 Wallace Rd NWSalem, OR 97304503-361-3949drjdyson1@... On Jul 7, 2009, at 7:26 AM, Lindekugel wrote:Yet somehow, with all these problems, their outcomes are better than ours here in the US, and they do it at half the cost. HALF THE COST!? How could it be that the free market has led us to such an expensive and inefficient mess? We have the illusion that we pay more, but are getting some sort of "Cadillac" system. This could not be further from the case. You present those numbers without noting that most, if not all of those statistics are worse here in the US with our "free" system. Lindekugel, DCConcordia Chiropractic Center5425 NE 33rd AvePortland OR 97211From: "drscottlakeoswegochiro" <drscottlakeoswegochiro>cosmo <chirodoc1comcast (DOT) net>; or < >Sent: Friday, July 3, 2009 9:16:37 AMSubject: Re: another health-care articleFor social engineers, history began this morning.No matter how often you point to failed policies of socialism in Europe, they will deride you as if you are just a stick in the mud naysayer who is not open to new ideas. E. Abrahamson, D.C.Chiropractic physicianLake Oswego Chiropractic Clinic315 Second StreetLake Oswego, OR 97034503-635-6246Website: http://www.lakeoswegochiro.comOn 7/3/09 7:35 AM, "cosmo" <chirodoc1comcast (DOT) net> wrote: From http://www.washingt onexaminer. com/opinion/ columns/OpEd- Contributor/ Obamacare- failed-in- Europe-7900839- 49458267. html"This is precisely what happened in Britain. The state provides most health care, via the National Health Service. Patients have almost no say over which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use, while professionals have to conform to government plans and targets. After its birth in 1948, planners soon found that "free" health care multiplied demand. NHS founder Lord Beveridge predicted free health care would cut spending as health improved. The opposite was true. Between 1949 and 1979, it tripled in real terms. The service now costs twice as much as it did 10 years ago, with productivity down 4.5 percent. One way government tries to limit demand is to decree which new drugs can be prescribed. Many drugs, widely available in America and continental Europe, are denied to British patients. State mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on average causing 8.6 weeks of waiting. Once inside, budgetary cutbacks on cleaning and maintenance mean higher rates of an antibiotic-resistan t variety of staph infection. This "superbug" has turned even routine surgery into a lottery of death." Seems like 'free health care for everyone' hasn't worked out as planned. What can US policy makers learn from these mistakes? J. Pedersen DC

[Guest guest]

Excellent analysis! However,

government involvement would not make it free-market either. Those in

power will “build the railroad” through their land for personal

gain. Vern noted that years ago that Canadian Chiropractors were in the

system but then patients had to make a co-pay to see a DC but not an MD. Were

people breaking down the doors of the DC offices so they needed the barrier for

chiropractic but not for medicine? In Oregon, DC’s were full-fledged

providers in the WC system but were targeted for elimination to obscure SAIF

mismanagement. This isn’t a perfect analogy but illustrates it that

it isn’t just about the money; it is about special interests, power and

bias as well.

Seitz, DC

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of Jamey Dyson

Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 8:11

AM

Lindekugel; Docs

Subject: Re:

another health-care article

Our

healthcare system has not been run on a true free market. Insurance

companies do not allow it to be so. Insurance companies are a form of

communal wealth re-distribution, where everyone pays into the pot but only a

few will ever take out of the pot. MD's and hospitals have figured out

ways to pull out of the pot better than the rest of us.

A true free market would not have insurance companies involved.

It would be patients paying for goods and services that come directly

from the providers. That is where the free market would fix everything.

Who would pay $800/month out of pocket for drugs that aren't really

fixing the problem? Who would pay $25,000 for a discectomy out of their

pocket when they could treat it with more conservative methods? Who would

pay $75,000 for a triple bypass out of their pocket when they could

just change their lifestyle? Who would pay $15,000 to hav e a colostomy,

when they could just change to a healthier diet? (I'm guessing on these

costs)

Insurance companies allow the wool to be pulled over people's eyes as

to the true cost of their " healthcare " . In a true free market

people would actually pay for what they get. Simple, clean, responsible,

empowering.

Dr. Jamey Dyson

Advanced Chiropractic

1295 Wallace Rd NW

Salem,

OR 97304

503-361-3949

drjdyson1comcast (DOT) net

On Jul 7, 2009, at 7:26 AM, Lindekugel wrote:

Yet

somehow, with all these problems, their outcomes are better than ours here in

the US, and they do it at half the cost. HALF THE COST!? How could

it be that the free market has led us to such an expensive and inefficient

mess? We have the il lusion that we pay more, but are getting some sort

of " Cadillac " system. This could not be further from the

case. You present those numbers without noting that most, if not all of

those statistics are worse here in the US with our " free "

system.

Lindekugel, DC

Concordia Chiropractic Center

5425 NE 33rd Ave

Portland OR

97211

From: " drscottlakeoswegochiro "

<drscottlakeoswegochiro>

cosmo <chirodoc1@comc ast.net>;

or < >

Sent: Friday, July 3, 2009 9:16:37 AM

Subject: Re: another

health-care article

For

social engineers, history began this morning.

No matter how often you point to failed policies of socialism in Europe, they will deride you as if you are just a stick

in the mud naysayer who is not open to new ideas.

E. Abrahamson, D.C.

Chiropractic physician

Lake Oswego

Chiropractic Clinic

315 Second Street

Lake Oswego, OR 97034

503-635-6246

Website: http://www.lakeoswegochiro.com

On 7/3/09 7:35 AM, " cosmo " <chirodoc1comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

From http://www.washingt

onexaminer. com/opinion/ columns/OpEd- Contributor/ Obamacare- failed-in-

Europe-7900839- 49458267. html

" This is precisel y what

happened in Britain.

The state provides most health care, via the National Health Service. Patients

have almost no say over which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use,

while professionals have to conform to government plans and targets.

After its birth in 1948, planners soon found that " free " health care

multiplied demand. NHS founder Lord Beveridge predicted free health care would

cut spending as health improved.

The opposite was true. Between 1949 and 1979, it tripled in real terms. The

service now costs twice as much as it did 10 years ago, with productivity down

4.5 percent.

One way government tries to limit demand is to decree which new drugs can be

prescribed. Many drugs, widely available in America

and continental Europe, are denied to British

patients.

< br>State mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on

average causing 8.6 weeks of waiting. Once inside, budgetary cutbacks on

cleaning and maintenance mean higher rates of an antibiotic-resistan t variety

of staph infection. This " superbug " has turned even routine surgery

into a lottery of death. "

Seems like 'free health care for everyone' hasn't worked out as planned.

What can US policy makers learn from these mistakes?

J. Pedersen DC

[Guest guest]

Good points Jamey. In the past, when expensive drugs and surgeries were first utilized, they were for extreme circumstances. Many could not afford them. Insurance seemed to promise access and spread the cost over many. Then something shifted in medicine. These new treatments were somehow thought of as THE way to treat illness. Much personal responsibility went out the window because there are drugs and surgeries if anything goes wrong. The insurers have to walk a fine line between pretending to give wellness, while dealing with a population that does not understand that health is something you do every day. I think that nothing has added more to the cost of health care than this development that the insurers have somehow worked to their advantage

(and downfall). Lindekugel, DCFrom: Jamey Dyson <drjdyson1@...> Lindekugel <pdxchiroguy@...>; Docs < >Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2009 8:10:41 AMSubject: Re: another health-care article

Our healthcare system has not been run on a true free market. Insurance companies do not allow it to be so. Insurance companies are a form of communal wealth re-distribution, where everyone pays into the pot but only a few will ever take out of the pot. MD's and hospitals have figured out ways to pull out of the pot better than the rest of us. A true free market would not have insurance companies involved. It would be patients paying for goods and services that come directly from the providers. That is where the free market would fix everything. Who would pay $800/month out of pocket for drugs that aren't really fixing the problem? Who would pay $25,000 for a discectomy out of their pocket when they could treat it with more conservative methods? Who would pay $75,000 for a triple bypass out of their pocket when they could just change their lifestyle? Who would pay

$15,000 to have a colostomy, when they could just change to a healthier diet? (I'm guessing on these costs) Insurance companies allow the wool to be pulled over people's eyes as to the true cost of their "healthcare". In a true free market people would actually pay for what they get. Simple, clean, responsible, empowering. Dr. Jamey DysonAdvanced Chiropractic1295 Wallace Rd NWSalem, OR 97304503-361-3949drjdyson1@... On Jul 7, 2009, at 7:26 AM, Lindekugel wrote:Yet somehow, with all these problems, their outcomes are better than ours here in the US, and they do it at half the cost. HALF THE COST!? How could it be that the free market has led us to such an expensive and inefficient mess? We have the illusion that we pay more, but are getting some sort of "Cadillac" system. This could not be further from the case. You present those numbers without noting that most, if not all of those statistics are worse here in the US with our "free" system. Lindekugel, DCConcordia Chiropractic Center5425 NE 33rd AvePortland OR 97211From: "drscott@lakeoswego chiro.com" <drscott@lakeoswegoc

hiro.com>cosmo <chirodoc1comcast (DOT) net>; or <@grou ps.com>Sent: Friday, July 3, 2009 9:16:37 AMSubject: Re: another health-care articleFor social engineers, history began this morning.No matter how often you point to failed policies of socialism in Europe, they will deride you as if you are just a stick in the mud naysayer who is not open to new ideas. E. Abrahamson, D.C.Chiropractic physicianLake Oswego Chiropractic Clinic315 Second StreetLake Oswego, OR 97034503-635-6246Website: http://www.lakeoswegochiro.comOn 7/3/09 7:35 AM, "cosmo" <chirodoc1comcast (DOT) net> wrote: From http://www.washingt onexaminer. com/opinion/ columns/OpEd- Contributor/ Obamacare- failed-in- Europe-7900839- 49458267. html"This is precisely what happened in Britain. The state provides most health care, via the National Health Service. Patients have almost no say over which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use, while professionals have to conform to government plans and

targets. After its birth in 1948, planners soon found that "free" health care multiplied demand. NHS founder Lord Beveridge predicted free health care would cut spending as health improved. The opposite was true. Between 1949 and 1979, it tripled in real terms. The service now costs twice as much as it did 10 years ago, with productivity down 4.5 percent. One way government tries to limit demand is to decree

which new drugs can be prescribed. Many drugs, widely available in America and continental Europe, are denied to British patients. State mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on average causing 8.6 weeks of waiting. Once inside, budgetary cutbacks on cleaning and maintenance mean higher rates of an antibiotic-resistan t variety of staph infection. This "superbug" has turned even routine surgery into a lottery of death." Seems like 'free health care for everyone' hasn't worked out as planned. What can US policy makers learn from these mistakes? J. Pedersen DC

[Guest guest]

Good points Jamey. In the past, when expensive drugs and surgeries were first utilized, they were for extreme circumstances. Many could not afford them. Insurance seemed to promise access and spread the cost over many. Then something shifted in medicine. These new treatments were somehow thought of as THE way to treat illness. Much personal responsibility went out the window because there are drugs and surgeries if anything goes wrong. The insurers have to walk a fine line between pretending to give wellness, while dealing with a population that does not understand that health is something you do every day. I think that nothing has added more to the cost of health care than this development that the insurers have somehow worked to their advantage

(and downfall). Lindekugel, DCFrom: Jamey Dyson <drjdyson1@...> Lindekugel <pdxchiroguy@...>; Docs < >Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2009 8:10:41 AMSubject: Re: another health-care article

Our healthcare system has not been run on a true free market. Insurance companies do not allow it to be so. Insurance companies are a form of communal wealth re-distribution, where everyone pays into the pot but only a few will ever take out of the pot. MD's and hospitals have figured out ways to pull out of the pot better than the rest of us. A true free market would not have insurance companies involved. It would be patients paying for goods and services that come directly from the providers. That is where the free market would fix everything. Who would pay $800/month out of pocket for drugs that aren't really fixing the problem? Who would pay $25,000 for a discectomy out of their pocket when they could treat it with more conservative methods? Who would pay $75,000 for a triple bypass out of their pocket when they could just change their lifestyle? Who would pay

$15,000 to have a colostomy, when they could just change to a healthier diet? (I'm guessing on these costs) Insurance companies allow the wool to be pulled over people's eyes as to the true cost of their "healthcare". In a true free market people would actually pay for what they get. Simple, clean, responsible, empowering. Dr. Jamey DysonAdvanced Chiropractic1295 Wallace Rd NWSalem, OR 97304503-361-3949drjdyson1@... On Jul 7, 2009, at 7:26 AM, Lindekugel wrote:Yet somehow, with all these problems, their outcomes are better than ours here in the US, and they do it at half the cost. HALF THE COST!? How could it be that the free market has led us to such an expensive and inefficient mess? We have the illusion that we pay more, but are getting some sort of "Cadillac" system. This could not be further from the case. You present those numbers without noting that most, if not all of those statistics are worse here in the US with our "free" system. Lindekugel, DCConcordia Chiropractic Center5425 NE 33rd AvePortland OR 97211From: "drscott@lakeoswego chiro.com" <drscott@lakeoswegoc

hiro.com>cosmo <chirodoc1comcast (DOT) net>; or <@grou ps.com>Sent: Friday, July 3, 2009 9:16:37 AMSubject: Re: another health-care articleFor social engineers, history began this morning.No matter how often you point to failed policies of socialism in Europe, they will deride you as if you are just a stick in the mud naysayer who is not open to new ideas. E. Abrahamson, D.C.Chiropractic physicianLake Oswego Chiropractic Clinic315 Second StreetLake Oswego, OR 97034503-635-6246Website: http://www.lakeoswegochiro.comOn 7/3/09 7:35 AM, "cosmo" <chirodoc1comcast (DOT) net> wrote: From http://www.washingt onexaminer. com/opinion/ columns/OpEd- Contributor/ Obamacare- failed-in- Europe-7900839- 49458267. html"This is precisely what happened in Britain. The state provides most health care, via the National Health Service. Patients have almost no say over which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use, while professionals have to conform to government plans and

targets. After its birth in 1948, planners soon found that "free" health care multiplied demand. NHS founder Lord Beveridge predicted free health care would cut spending as health improved. The opposite was true. Between 1949 and 1979, it tripled in real terms. The service now costs twice as much as it did 10 years ago, with productivity down 4.5 percent. One way government tries to limit demand is to decree

which new drugs can be prescribed. Many drugs, widely available in America and continental Europe, are denied to British patients. State mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on average causing 8.6 weeks of waiting. Once inside, budgetary cutbacks on cleaning and maintenance mean higher rates of an antibiotic-resistan t variety of staph infection. This "superbug" has turned even routine surgery into a lottery of death." Seems like 'free health care for everyone' hasn't worked out as planned. What can US policy makers learn from these mistakes? J. Pedersen DC

[Guest guest]

Well...we DON'T have a free market system, really. In other words, there's no significant "competition" to keep medical costs and insurance costs down. "They" are destroying themselves (and the health of our citizens) through greed. (:-)

RR.

Re: another health-care article

For social engineers, history began this morning.No matter how often you point to failed policies of socialism in Europe, they will deride you as if you are just a stick in the mud naysayer who is not open to new ideas. E. Abrahamson, D.C.Chiropractic physicianLake Oswego Chiropractic Clinic315 Second StreetLake Oswego, OR 97034503-635-6246Website: http://www.lakeoswegochiro.comOn 7/3/09 7:35 AM, "cosmo" <chirodoc1comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

From http://www.washingt onexaminer. com/opinion/ columns/OpEd- Contributor/ Obamacare- failed-in- Europe-7900839- 49458267. html"This is precisely what happened in Britain. The state provides most health care, via the National Health Service. Patients have almost no say over which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use, while professionals have to conform to government plans and targets.

After its birth in 1948, planners soon found that "free" health care multiplied demand. NHS founder Lord Beveridge predicted free health care would cut spending as health improved. The opposite was true. Between 1949 and 1979, it tripled in real terms. The service now costs twice as much as it did 10 years ago, with productivity down 4.5 percent. One way government tries to limit demand is to decree which new drugs can be prescribed. Many drugs, widely available in America and continental Europe, are denied to British patients. State mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on average causing 8.6 weeks of waiting. Once inside, budgetary cutbacks on cleaning and maintenance mean higher rates of an antibiotic-resistan t variety of staph infection. This "superbug" has turned even routine surgery into a lottery of death." Seems like 'free health care for everyone' hasn't worked out as planned. What can US policy makers learn from these mistakes? J. Pedersen DC

[Guest guest]

Well...we DON'T have a free market system, really. In other words, there's no significant "competition" to keep medical costs and insurance costs down. "They" are destroying themselves (and the health of our citizens) through greed. (:-)

RR.

Re: another health-care article

For social engineers, history began this morning.No matter how often you point to failed policies of socialism in Europe, they will deride you as if you are just a stick in the mud naysayer who is not open to new ideas. E. Abrahamson, D.C.Chiropractic physicianLake Oswego Chiropractic Clinic315 Second StreetLake Oswego, OR 97034503-635-6246Website: http://www.lakeoswegochiro.comOn 7/3/09 7:35 AM, "cosmo" <chirodoc1comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

From http://www.washingt onexaminer. com/opinion/ columns/OpEd- Contributor/ Obamacare- failed-in- Europe-7900839- 49458267. html"This is precisely what happened in Britain. The state provides most health care, via the National Health Service. Patients have almost no say over which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use, while professionals have to conform to government plans and targets.

After its birth in 1948, planners soon found that "free" health care multiplied demand. NHS founder Lord Beveridge predicted free health care would cut spending as health improved. The opposite was true. Between 1949 and 1979, it tripled in real terms. The service now costs twice as much as it did 10 years ago, with productivity down 4.5 percent. One way government tries to limit demand is to decree which new drugs can be prescribed. Many drugs, widely available in America and continental Europe, are denied to British patients. State mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on average causing 8.6 weeks of waiting. Once inside, budgetary cutbacks on cleaning and maintenance mean higher rates of an antibiotic-resistan t variety of staph infection. This "superbug" has turned even routine surgery into a lottery of death." Seems like 'free health care for everyone' hasn't worked out as planned. What can US policy makers learn from these mistakes? J. Pedersen DC

[Guest guest]

Well...we DON'T have a free market system, really. In other words, there's no significant "competition" to keep medical costs and insurance costs down. "They" are destroying themselves (and the health of our citizens) through greed. (:-)

RR.

Re: another health-care article

For social engineers, history began this morning.No matter how often you point to failed policies of socialism in Europe, they will deride you as if you are just a stick in the mud naysayer who is not open to new ideas. E. Abrahamson, D.C.Chiropractic physicianLake Oswego Chiropractic Clinic315 Second StreetLake Oswego, OR 97034503-635-6246Website: http://www.lakeoswegochiro.comOn 7/3/09 7:35 AM, "cosmo" <chirodoc1comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

From http://www.washingt onexaminer. com/opinion/ columns/OpEd- Contributor/ Obamacare- failed-in- Europe-7900839- 49458267. html"This is precisely what happened in Britain. The state provides most health care, via the National Health Service. Patients have almost no say over which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use, while professionals have to conform to government plans and targets.

After its birth in 1948, planners soon found that "free" health care multiplied demand. NHS founder Lord Beveridge predicted free health care would cut spending as health improved. The opposite was true. Between 1949 and 1979, it tripled in real terms. The service now costs twice as much as it did 10 years ago, with productivity down 4.5 percent. One way government tries to limit demand is to decree which new drugs can be prescribed. Many drugs, widely available in America and continental Europe, are denied to British patients. State mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on average causing 8.6 weeks of waiting. Once inside, budgetary cutbacks on cleaning and maintenance mean higher rates of an antibiotic-resistan t variety of staph infection. This "superbug" has turned even routine surgery into a lottery of death." Seems like 'free health care for everyone' hasn't worked out as planned. What can US policy makers learn from these mistakes? J. Pedersen DC

[Guest guest]

You bring up some good points. Europe has not bought into the idea that pills are somehow just a fact of life. Taking drugs daily for a condition is still seen as a fairly extreme course to take. This alone may account for much of the cost savings you see their, as compared to here. Lindekugel, DCFrom: Kehr <jkehr@...>

< >Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2009 11:36:02 AMSubject: FW: another health-care article

From: Kehr

[mailto:jkehr@ eoni.com]

Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 11:15

AM

' Lindekugel'

Subject: RE:

another health-care article

When you walk into a pharmacy in Europe you see 90% + natural medicine. If you want

to talk about saving costs they are doing it because they have not let the government/

FDA step in and hinder the sales of natural medicine, they do not promote drugs

and surgery on every street corner. Our government is our major medical

corporation, they control the costs and give a very large and unfair advantage

to the pharmaceutical companies and vaccine manufacturers. Costs

skyrocket because of our government, not in spite of it. Again not

Democrat or Republican government but both and all. When we truly look at

the cause for our medical mismanagement we find the answers. Kehr

From:

@grou ps.com [mailto:] On Behalf Of Lindekugel

Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 7:26

AM

drscott@lakeoswegoc hiro.com;

cosmo; or

Subject: Re:

another health-care article

Yet somehow, with all

these problems, their outcomes are better than ours here in the US, and they do

it at half the cost. HALF THE COST!? How could it be that the free

market has led us to such an expensive and inefficient mess? We have the

illusion that we pay more, but are getting some sort of "Cadillac"

system. This could not be further from the case. You present those

numbers without noting that most, if not all of those statistics are worse here

in the US with our "free" system.

Lindekugel, DC

Concordia Chiropractic Center

5425 NE 33rd Ave

Portland OR 97211

From:

"drscott@lakeoswego chiro.com" <drscott@lakeoswegoc hiro.com>

cosmo <chirodoc1comcast (DOT) net>;

or <@grou ps.com>

Sent: Friday, July 3, 2009 9:16:37

AM

Subject: Re:

another health-care article

For social engineers, history began

this morning.

No matter how often you point to failed policies of socialism in Europe , they will deride you as if you are just a stick

in the mud naysayer who is not open to new ideas.

E. Abrahamson, D.C.

Chiropractic physician

Lake Oswego Chiropractic Clinic

315 Second Street

Lake Oswego , OR 97034

503-635-6246

Website: http://www.lakeoswegochiro.com

On 7/3/09 7:35 AM, "cosmo" <chirodoc1comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

From http://www.washingt onexaminer. com/opinion/ columns/OpEd-

Contributor/ Obamacare- failed-in- Europe-7900839- 49458267. html

"This is precisely what happened in Britain . The state provides most

health care, via the National Health Service. Patients have almost no say over

which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use, while professionals have to

conform to government plans and targets.

After its birth in 1948, planners soon found that "free" health care

multiplied demand. NHS founder Lord Beveridge predicted free health care would

cut spending as health improved.

The opposite was true. Between 1949 and 1979, it tripled in real terms. The

service now costs twice as much as it did 10 years ago, with productivity down

4.5 percent.

One way government tries to limit demand is to decree which new drugs can be

prescribed. Many drugs, widely available in America and continental Europe , are denied to British

patients.

State mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on average

causing 8.6 weeks of waiting. Once inside, budgetary cutbacks on cleaning and

maintenance mean higher rates of an antibiotic-resistan t variety of staph

infection. This "superbug" has turned even routine surgery into a

lottery of death."

Seems like 'free health care for everyone' hasn't worked out as planned.

What can US policy makers learn from these mistakes?

J. Pedersen DC

[Guest guest]

You bring up some good points. Europe has not bought into the idea that pills are somehow just a fact of life. Taking drugs daily for a condition is still seen as a fairly extreme course to take. This alone may account for much of the cost savings you see their, as compared to here. Lindekugel, DCFrom: Kehr <jkehr@...>

< >Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2009 11:36:02 AMSubject: FW: another health-care article

From: Kehr

[mailto:jkehr@ eoni.com]

Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 11:15

AM

' Lindekugel'

Subject: RE:

another health-care article

When you walk into a pharmacy in Europe you see 90% + natural medicine. If you want

to talk about saving costs they are doing it because they have not let the government/

FDA step in and hinder the sales of natural medicine, they do not promote drugs

and surgery on every street corner. Our government is our major medical

corporation, they control the costs and give a very large and unfair advantage

to the pharmaceutical companies and vaccine manufacturers. Costs

skyrocket because of our government, not in spite of it. Again not

Democrat or Republican government but both and all. When we truly look at

the cause for our medical mismanagement we find the answers. Kehr

From:

@grou ps.com [mailto:] On Behalf Of Lindekugel

Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 7:26

AM

drscott@lakeoswegoc hiro.com;

cosmo; or

Subject: Re:

another health-care article

Yet somehow, with all

these problems, their outcomes are better than ours here in the US, and they do

it at half the cost. HALF THE COST!? How could it be that the free

market has led us to such an expensive and inefficient mess? We have the

illusion that we pay more, but are getting some sort of "Cadillac"

system. This could not be further from the case. You present those

numbers without noting that most, if not all of those statistics are worse here

in the US with our "free" system.

Lindekugel, DC

Concordia Chiropractic Center

5425 NE 33rd Ave

Portland OR 97211

From:

"drscott@lakeoswego chiro.com" <drscott@lakeoswegoc hiro.com>

cosmo <chirodoc1comcast (DOT) net>;

or <@grou ps.com>

Sent: Friday, July 3, 2009 9:16:37

AM

Subject: Re:

another health-care article

For social engineers, history began

this morning.

No matter how often you point to failed policies of socialism in Europe , they will deride you as if you are just a stick

in the mud naysayer who is not open to new ideas.

E. Abrahamson, D.C.

Chiropractic physician

Lake Oswego Chiropractic Clinic

315 Second Street

Lake Oswego , OR 97034

503-635-6246

Website: http://www.lakeoswegochiro.com

On 7/3/09 7:35 AM, "cosmo" <chirodoc1comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

From http://www.washingt onexaminer. com/opinion/ columns/OpEd-

Contributor/ Obamacare- failed-in- Europe-7900839- 49458267. html

"This is precisely what happened in Britain . The state provides most

health care, via the National Health Service. Patients have almost no say over

which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use, while professionals have to

conform to government plans and targets.

After its birth in 1948, planners soon found that "free" health care

multiplied demand. NHS founder Lord Beveridge predicted free health care would

cut spending as health improved.

The opposite was true. Between 1949 and 1979, it tripled in real terms. The

service now costs twice as much as it did 10 years ago, with productivity down

4.5 percent.

One way government tries to limit demand is to decree which new drugs can be

prescribed. Many drugs, widely available in America and continental Europe , are denied to British

patients.

State mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on average

causing 8.6 weeks of waiting. Once inside, budgetary cutbacks on cleaning and

maintenance mean higher rates of an antibiotic-resistan t variety of staph

infection. This "superbug" has turned even routine surgery into a

lottery of death."

Seems like 'free health care for everyone' hasn't worked out as planned.

What can US policy makers learn from these mistakes?

J. Pedersen DC

[Guest guest]

You bring up some good points. Europe has not bought into the idea that pills are somehow just a fact of life. Taking drugs daily for a condition is still seen as a fairly extreme course to take. This alone may account for much of the cost savings you see their, as compared to here. Lindekugel, DCFrom: Kehr <jkehr@...>

< >Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2009 11:36:02 AMSubject: FW: another health-care article

From: Kehr

[mailto:jkehr@ eoni.com]

Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 11:15

AM

' Lindekugel'

Subject: RE:

another health-care article

When you walk into a pharmacy in Europe you see 90% + natural medicine. If you want

to talk about saving costs they are doing it because they have not let the government/

FDA step in and hinder the sales of natural medicine, they do not promote drugs

and surgery on every street corner. Our government is our major medical

corporation, they control the costs and give a very large and unfair advantage

to the pharmaceutical companies and vaccine manufacturers. Costs

skyrocket because of our government, not in spite of it. Again not

Democrat or Republican government but both and all. When we truly look at

the cause for our medical mismanagement we find the answers. Kehr

From:

@grou ps.com [mailto:] On Behalf Of Lindekugel

Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 7:26

AM

drscott@lakeoswegoc hiro.com;

cosmo; or

Subject: Re:

another health-care article

Yet somehow, with all

these problems, their outcomes are better than ours here in the US, and they do

it at half the cost. HALF THE COST!? How could it be that the free

market has led us to such an expensive and inefficient mess? We have the

illusion that we pay more, but are getting some sort of "Cadillac"

system. This could not be further from the case. You present those

numbers without noting that most, if not all of those statistics are worse here

in the US with our "free" system.

Lindekugel, DC

Concordia Chiropractic Center

5425 NE 33rd Ave

Portland OR 97211

From:

"drscott@lakeoswego chiro.com" <drscott@lakeoswegoc hiro.com>

cosmo <chirodoc1comcast (DOT) net>;

or <@grou ps.com>

Sent: Friday, July 3, 2009 9:16:37

AM

Subject: Re:

another health-care article

For social engineers, history began

this morning.

No matter how often you point to failed policies of socialism in Europe , they will deride you as if you are just a stick

in the mud naysayer who is not open to new ideas.

E. Abrahamson, D.C.

Chiropractic physician

Lake Oswego Chiropractic Clinic

315 Second Street

Lake Oswego , OR 97034

503-635-6246

Website: http://www.lakeoswegochiro.com

On 7/3/09 7:35 AM, "cosmo" <chirodoc1comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

From http://www.washingt onexaminer. com/opinion/ columns/OpEd-

Contributor/ Obamacare- failed-in- Europe-7900839- 49458267. html

"This is precisely what happened in Britain . The state provides most

health care, via the National Health Service. Patients have almost no say over

which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use, while professionals have to

conform to government plans and targets.

After its birth in 1948, planners soon found that "free" health care

multiplied demand. NHS founder Lord Beveridge predicted free health care would

cut spending as health improved.

The opposite was true. Between 1949 and 1979, it tripled in real terms. The

service now costs twice as much as it did 10 years ago, with productivity down

4.5 percent.

One way government tries to limit demand is to decree which new drugs can be

prescribed. Many drugs, widely available in America and continental Europe , are denied to British

patients.

State mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on average

causing 8.6 weeks of waiting. Once inside, budgetary cutbacks on cleaning and

maintenance mean higher rates of an antibiotic-resistan t variety of staph

infection. This "superbug" has turned even routine surgery into a

lottery of death."

Seems like 'free health care for everyone' hasn't worked out as planned.

What can US policy makers learn from these mistakes?

J. Pedersen DC