Re: Sicko ( ) and US Health Care

[Guest guest]

I guess I have to take exception to the issue about the uninsured. Some

people cannot afford insurance, no question. There are as many OR MORE that

opt NOT to have insurance. I know several right now in that situation

including my youngest son. We have hounded and badgered him to get himself

coverage, but he absolutely refuses to (and he can well afford it).

I also know a significant number of others who made the same choice - not to

have insurance. I saw number on this a couple of months back, but did not

really pay attention as I was searching for something else. It sticks in my

head that nearly 1/3 of those uncovered are by choice. So, before we start

cranking up the propaganda machine, it probably would be nice to know just

how many people have chosen not to have any coverage whatsoever and subtract

them from the total.

Next issue is dealing with the cost of illegal aliens that seek free health

care from our facilities and do not pay into the system either. In the US,

they are covered in emergency rooms which is not a cheap thing for the rest

of us to absorb. This one factor alone is closing hospitals all along our

southern border with Mexico which is well documented. Why do we have to pay

for someone who is here illegally?

I work with a number of terminal people on a daily basis and I hear easily

5:1 complaints against Canadian health care as compared to US. Living

within an hour of the border, we see numbers of Canadians that come here for

health care rather than wait for their coverage there. I also know of

literally hundreds of nurses from Canada that work in the States rather than

for the health system in Canada. Two of our local hospitals including the

one I have used for both cancer and other critical illnesses is staffed by

at least 20% Canadian medical professionals. I do not know anyone who is a

nurse or doctor in the US that commutes to Canada to work there. Why is

that?

There are a lot of problems here and I am not disputing that, BUT I am

saying that before you start condemning our system, it would be a reasonable

thing to compare apples to apples. If you are laying out statistics, make

sure that the numbers quoted reflect the true picture, not one skewed one

way or the other simply to make a political statement.

I am not a great fan of the American medical system. Nor am I a believer

that involving the government in it will somehow make it better. I do not

have the answers, but simply making another governmental controlling agency

is not a viable solution either.

As to alternative medicines...pardon me if I am not mistaken, we have much

greater freedom to choose what we wish here in the states than most other

places. CODEX in Europe has significantly cut into supplements, as I recall

from my last trip to both France and England.

I know for fact that if I go to Canada and purchase Cayenne powder in a

grocery store for a condiment, there is no problem, but if I go to a health

food store and they were to sell me the same product, all of us could go to

jail because it was being dispensed as a " drug. " What's wrong with that

system?

Bruce Guilmette, Ph.D.

http://survivecancerfoundation.org

Sicko ( ) and US Health Care

Hi,

yesterday, I had a chance to see 's film Sicko - if what

he says about the American system is true, you American's are having

a lot of trouble with your health care system, in a way unimaginable

to Europeans for example.

Not only is it a scandal that 50 million people cannot afford basic

health care (I was aware of this before), yet I was not aware to what

extent even those with full health insurance are often denied

important treatment by the health insurance companies!

I live in Germany and over here, there are two systems:

1: State organised health insurance. Everyone has to be in this,

unless you have opted for private health insurance. You pay about

13.4% of your taxable income (max. about 510 Euros/Month) for full

insurance. The unemployed have health insurance paid for them. Nobody

is denied treatment, nobody is excluded from cover. You can go to any

doctor of your choice. You continue to receive your pay while you are

ill, etc. Medicines are charged at a flat rate, yet max. 2% of your

income per annum.

2: Private health insurance: At least the same as the state system,

yet additionally reduced waiting time at the doctors, smaller rooms

in hospitals and treatment by top doctors, payment for alternative

therapies, etc.

I have never experienced waiting for treatment more than a couple of

hours for routine checkups. The quality of treatment is very high and

I have never experienced anyone being out of pocket simply because

they were ill.

I am personally using system 1 and have always received the full

treatment I needed.

In the USA, it appears that many fully insured people still lose

their homes just to pay for treatment denied by their health

insurance companies.

No wonder Rife and other alternative therapies are so popular in the

USA.

What do the Americans on this Group think about what is said in the

film Sicko and your own health system?

Regards

(Moderator)

[Guest guest]

,

As a US citizen, I thought SICKO was a superb documentary that pretty

much told the truth. This is one of 's best efforts. It exposed our

national health care scandal for what it is. It is all about money, plain

and simple. The lobbyists are able to influence our legislators enough to

prevent any serious attempt at universal heath care in this country. Shame.

They say the USA is a democracy when in fact it is for sale by the highest

bidder. We will not have a democracy until we can fund our politicians'

campaigns publicly and make any outside contributions, illegal. What a joke

it all is, if only our founding fathers could have looked into the future.

doug

ps: I would gladly wait in line for public health care in this country

rather than the current norm of losing my life savings/assets to the medical

establishment while, probably, succumbing anyway.

[Guest guest]

Bruce,

The illegal alien problem affects the neediest of Americans the most. It is

criminal that those Americans that are disabled, poor, or too old to care

for themselves are the ones who primarily suffer the consequences of the

illegal alien problem .

Somehow, politicians think it OK to not adequately take care of the

neediest of Americans so that an illegal alien can have benefits .

Benefits, and a better standard of living that should be going to those

Americans in need. When some politician stands up and supports the

continued allocation of public assets to illegals, they are putting a knife

in back of every American citizen in need.

Jim Bare

>Next issue is dealing with the cost of illegal aliens that seek free health

>care from our facilities and do not pay into the system either. In the US,

>they are covered in emergency rooms which is not a cheap thing for the rest

>of us to absorb. This one factor alone is closing hospitals all along our

>southern border with Mexico which is well documented. Why do we have to pay

>for someone who is here illegally?

[Guest guest]

Hang on, Hilliary Care is just around the corner, as are

mass retirements of fed-up doctors, long waiting lists for

necessary surgeries, denials of needed services, etc.

Canada-Care, here we come...

jp

> As a US citizen, I thought SICKO was a superb documentary that pretty

> much told the truth. This is one of 's best efforts. It exposed our

> national health care scandal for what it is. It is all about money, plain

> and simple. The lobbyists are able to influence our legislators enough to

> prevent any serious attempt at universal heath care in this country.

> Shame.

> They say the USA is a democracy when in fact it is for sale by the highest

> bidder. We will not have a democracy until we can fund our politicians'

> campaigns publicly and make any outside contributions, illegal. What a

> joke

> it all is, if only our founding fathers could have looked into the future.

>

> doug

>

> ps: I would gladly wait in line for public health care in this country

> rather than the current norm of losing my life savings/assets to the

> medical

> establishment while, probably, succumbing anyway.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

So Very well said!!!! So sadly true.

Debbie

Bare wrote:

Bruce,

The illegal alien problem affects the neediest of Americans the most. It is

criminal that those Americans that are disabled, poor, or too old to care

for themselves are the ones who primarily suffer the consequences of the

illegal alien problem .

Somehow, politicians think it OK to not adequately take care of the

neediest of Americans so that an illegal alien can have benefits .

Benefits, and a better standard of living that should be going to those

Americans in need. When some politician stands up and supports the

continued allocation of public assets to illegals, they are putting a knife

in back of every American citizen in need.

Jim Bare

>Next issue is dealing with the cost of illegal aliens that seek free health

>care from our facilities and do not pay into the system either. In the US,

>they are covered in emergency rooms which is not a cheap thing for the rest

>of us to absorb. This one factor alone is closing hospitals all along our

>southern border with Mexico which is well documented. Why do we have to pay

>for someone who is here illegally?

[Guest guest]

Dr. G. brings up a very good point. Many of us chose not to have

health insurance coverage even when we could afford it. I for one

have dropped my lousy coverage a few years ago when my request for

treatment was denied by a clerk who obviously must have been

qualified to determine need based upon expert medical education, if

not, how else could they refuse me access to medical treatment which,

by contract, I was paying for? There are so may loopholes that are

not covered that one can easily see that the risk of being driven

into bankruptcy is nearly the same for those with or without

insurance coverage.

The perils we risk are either from accident which is usually covered

by automobile policies or by workers compensation when related to

work. The other risk is that of chronic disease. It is this area of

western medicine which is fraudulent. Cures are not offered, only

palliative treatments which do not address the cause of disease and

thus, cannot cure it. Our doctors are taught that there are no cures

and money donations are requested so that some day a cure may be

found. Horse pucky! All disease is curable. Just because your doctor

does not know how does not mean that cures don't exist. They do!

Holistic and naturapathic practitioners know the truth about the

common denominator to all disease, inadequate drainage. Accumulated

toxic build-up occurs due to inadequate metabolism and the

extracellular matrix of the body fluids becomes contaminated. This

causes a condition of cellular hypoxia, the starvation of oxygen.

Otto Warburg was awarded the 1931 Nobel Prize for proving this yet

modern medicine pretends to not know the answer. Western medicine,

when it comes to disease resolution, is a fraud. It matters not

whether or not you have insurance, you are still going to get a

screwing. Your doctor is a party to the crime whether he is aware of

it or not. Doctors die from same diseases their patients do so it is

obvious that most are ignorant of the truth. Having insurance,

knowing these facts tends to make the point moot.

Dr. Mathias Rath filed a complaint at the World Court in the Hague in

2003 accusing the drug industry of crimes against humanity. See what

he says about the drug companies and the medical profession. It will

turn your stomach! Its all true. Insurance coverage is only a means

to distribute the theft across greater numbers of the masses so that

the medical machine can still steal exhorbitant fees the costs of

which are spread over larger sectors of the population.

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/The_Hague/complaint/index.html

Bruce Guilmette said:

" I guess I have to take exception to the issue about the uninsured.

Some people cannot afford insurance, no question. There are as many

OR MORE that opt NOT to have insurance. I know several right now in

that situation including my youngest son. We have hounded and

badgered him to get himself coverage, but he absolutely refuses to

(and he can well afford it).

I also know a significant number of others who made the same choice -

not to have insurance. I saw number on this a couple of months back,

but did not really pay attention as I was searching for something

else. It sticks in my head that nearly 1/3 of those uncovered are by

choice. So, before we start cranking up the propaganda machine, it

probably would be nice to know just how many people have chosen not

to have any coverage whatsoever and subtract them from the total... "

[Guest guest]

" Canada-care " looks pretty bloody good to this USA citizen. As said in

his piece, few Canadians would give it up for our system. And I say for good

reason.

doug

Re: Sicko ( ) and US Health Care

> Hang on, Hilliary Care is just around the corner, as are

> mass retirements of fed-up doctors, long waiting lists for

> necessary surgeries, denials of needed services, etc.

> Canada-Care, here we come...

> jp

[Guest guest]

Jim

What you describe is scandalous. Please fill me in on the details. What services

are the disposal of an illegal alien which are not available to a needy

American?

Bare wrote:

Bruce,

The illegal alien problem affects the neediest of Americans the most. It is

criminal that those Americans that are disabled, poor, or too old to care

for themselves are the ones who primarily suffer the consequences of the

illegal alien problem .

Somehow, politicians think it OK to not adequately take care of the

neediest of Americans so that an illegal alien can have benefits .

Benefits, and a better standard of living that should be going to those

Americans in need. When some politician stands up and supports the

continued allocation of public assets to illegals, they are putting a knife

in back of every American citizen in need.

Jim Bare

>Next issue is dealing with the cost of illegal aliens that seek free health

>care from our facilities and do not pay into the system either. In the US,

>they are covered in emergency rooms which is not a cheap thing for the rest

>of us to absorb. This one factor alone is closing hospitals all along our

>southern border with Mexico which is well documented. Why do we have to pay

>for someone who is here illegally?

---------------------------------

Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.

[Guest guest]

Jim,

I could not agree more with you. If you are a citizen in this country

today, you have less equality/rights than illegal aliens. It is criminal

and our government fosters it because they make money off the illegals. Yet

we do nothing to keep them out or return them because it is not politically

expedient to do so. When government officials quit listening to those who

are taking polls and starts protecting those of us who are citizens, we will

be much better off.

Regards,

Bruce Guilmette, Ph.D.

http://survivecancerfoundation.org

RE: Sicko ( ) and US Health Care

Bruce,

The illegal alien problem affects the neediest of Americans the most. It is

criminal that those Americans that are disabled, poor, or too old to care

for themselves are the ones who primarily suffer the consequences of the

illegal alien problem .

Somehow, politicians think it OK to not adequately take care of the

neediest of Americans so that an illegal alien can have benefits .

Benefits, and a better standard of living that should be going to those

Americans in need. When some politician stands up and supports the

continued allocation of public assets to illegals, they are putting a knife

in back of every American citizen in need.

Jim Bare

>Next issue is dealing with the cost of illegal aliens that seek free health

>care from our facilities and do not pay into the system either. In the US,

>they are covered in emergency rooms which is not a cheap thing for the rest

>of us to absorb. This one factor alone is closing hospitals all along our

>southern border with Mexico which is well documented. Why do we have to pay

>for someone who is here illegally?

[Guest guest]

You remember just that thought when someone hands you a death sentence with

4 on the outside to live and cannot see anyone in a timely fashion that can

do you any good. I have 3 Canadian citizens here in Michigan right now

because they could not get help until it was too late. So, go ahead and

stand in line. Hope you find a short one.

Regards,

Bruce Guilmette, Ph.D.

http://survivecancerfoundation.org

Re: Sicko ( ) and US Health Care

,

As a US citizen, I thought SICKO was a superb documentary that pretty

much told the truth. This is one of 's best efforts. It exposed our

national health care scandal for what it is. It is all about money, plain

and simple. The lobbyists are able to influence our legislators enough to

prevent any serious attempt at universal heath care in this country. Shame.

They say the USA is a democracy when in fact it is for sale by the highest

bidder. We will not have a democracy until we can fund our politicians'

campaigns publicly and make any outside contributions, illegal. What a joke

it all is, if only our founding fathers could have looked into the future.

doug

ps: I would gladly wait in line for public health care in this country

rather than the current norm of losing my life savings/assets to the medical

establishment while, probably, succumbing anyway.

[Guest guest]

--- polo wrote:

> " Canada-care " looks pretty bloody good to this USA

> citizen. As said in

> his piece, few Canadians would give it up for our

> system. And I say for good

> reason.

>

> doug

Just because your system is really bad, that doesn't

mean our system is good. is a socialist

propagandist, not a documentarian. He very craftily

pulls our emotional strings, but whitewashes over the

fundamental issues and questions. Why are there so

many sick people in the first place? Why doesn't he

address that question? Why does so-called health care

cost so much? I'll tell you why. Because there's no

true freedom of choice and open competition. If there

were, I can guarantee that things would be better.

There are many doctors who would gladly use cheaper

and more cost effective methods if they weren't afraid

of losing their license. Instead of promoting

socialist systems, it would be much better to have

absolute individual freedom of choice and free market

competition, as well as protection from the fraud that

the insurance companies are perpetrating against the

people.

People like try to place themselves on the

throne of God, thinking they know what's best for the

world.

Anyone who wants to get a clearer perspective of the

more fundamental issues would do good to read or

listen to the little booklet called " The Law " , written

in 1850 by Frederic Bastiat.

http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/The_Law.pdf

http://www.freeaudio.org/fbastiat/24-Audio%20Book%20-%20Frederic%20Bastiat%20-%2\

0The%20Law,%20Part%201.mp3

http://www.freeaudio.org/fbastiat/24-Audio%20Book%20-%20Frederic%20Bastiat%20-%2\

0The%20Law%2C%20Part%202.mp3

I'll finish by saying that as long as imperfect humans

are trying to control other imperfect humans, we'll

have problems. And I can assure you that adopting a

socialist medical system like Canada's will not solve

America's health care problems.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

Yes, and if we get one of the proponents of the nationalized healthcare in as

president in 2008, we are in more trouble than now. The only one that is calling

for a free market health care system, which supports alternative healthcare as

well as allopathic, is Ron , who is sponsoring the Health Freedom Protection

Act, H.R. 2117. For more information on this great man, you can view the many

videos on Youtube or read about him here:

http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml

ge

Ringas wrote:

Just because your system is really bad, that doesn't

mean our system is good. is a socialist

propagandist, not a documentarian. He very craftily

pulls our emotional strings, but whitewashes over the

fundamental issues and questions. Why are there so

many sick people in the first place? Why doesn't he

address that question? Why does so-called health care

cost so much? I'll tell you why. Because there's no

true freedom of choice and open competition. If there

were, I can guarantee that things would be better.

There are many doctors who would gladly use cheaper

and more cost effective methods if they weren't afraid

of losing their license. Instead of promoting

socialist systems, it would be much better to have

absolute individual freedom of choice and free market

competition, as well as protection from the fraud that

the insurance companies are perpetrating against the

people.

---------------------------------

Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news,

photos & more.

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

I haven't seen the film yet. We probably have the highest state of the

art equipped hospitals in the US, but ranked something like 34 by the

WHO among industrialized nations overall. If you have a chronic

condition like high blood pressure, there is no cure by conventional

medicine in the US. They only treat the condition for the rest of your

life. If they cure it, they can't charge you every month for medicine.

I don't like the idea of government run medicine, because many people

come to the US for serious surgical conditions which they can't get in

their own country. But we have other problems that other countries

don't have with their medical establishments. Something has to change

here for the benefit of all people.

has been known to exaggerate or to make things up in his

films, but like I said I didn't see it.

>

> Hi,

> yesterday, I had a chance to see 's film Sicko - if what

> he says about the American system is true, you American's are having

> a lot of trouble with your health care system, in a way unimaginable

> to Europeans for example.

>

> Not only is it a scandal that 50 million people cannot afford basic

> health care (I was aware of this before), yet I was not aware to what

> extent even those with full health insurance are often denied

> important treatment by the health insurance companies!

>

> I live in Germany and over here, there are two systems:

> 1: State organised health insurance. Everyone has to be in this,

> unless you have opted for private health insurance. You pay about

> 13.4% of your taxable income (max. about 510 Euros/Month) for full

> insurance. The unemployed have health insurance paid for them. Nobody

> is denied treatment, nobody is excluded from cover. You can go to any

> doctor of your choice. You continue to receive your pay while you are

> ill, etc. Medicines are charged at a flat rate, yet max. 2% of your

> income per annum.

>

> 2: Private health insurance: At least the same as the state system,

> yet additionally reduced waiting time at the doctors, smaller rooms

> in hospitals and treatment by top doctors, payment for alternative

> therapies, etc.

>

> I have never experienced waiting for treatment more than a couple of

> hours for routine checkups. The quality of treatment is very high and

> I have never experienced anyone being out of pocket simply because

> they were ill.

>

> I am personally using system 1 and have always received the full

> treatment I needed.

>

> In the USA, it appears that many fully insured people still lose

> their homes just to pay for treatment denied by their health

> insurance companies.

>

> No wonder Rife and other alternative therapies are so popular in the

> USA.

>

> What do the Americans on this Group think about what is said in the

> film Sicko and your own health system?

>

> Regards

>

>

> (Moderator)

>

[Guest guest]

No, I am not heavily bankrolled by anyone. I retired because of terminal

cancer. I cannot collect my 401K's without significant penalty until

retirement age AS DEFINED BY THE GOVERNMENT even though I am still listed as

TERMINAL. I have now been fighting this ruling from the government for just

a little less than 16 months. And I should be in favor of more government

control? Lets turn this up a notch. I can't use my own money to live on

because I am not old enough even though I am in theory not going to live to

see 62.

I do not really like our system but I have no love for socialized medicine

either. I simply do not see how getting a government involved in something

has ever made it better. Government programs tend to be expensive, massive

failures even though the intent is wonderful. I am not saying that motives

are impure, but I do not see a corrupt Washington environment as the

salvation of anything. Government control of anything is about power first.

I am not a conspiracy theorist or off the wall nut of some kind. I just

think that life is better with less government in my life, not more. I have

yet to see one single instance in my life where having the government make a

decision for me has been of benefit. I am cut off from my own money. I

cannot openly use my RIFE equipment to help other people. I cannot openly

tell people that natural cures better than pharmaceuticals without threat of

going to jail. Now how is having the government involved in my life making

it better right now? How is giving them even more authority to control

finances and medical help going to benefit me even further than they already

have?

You mention that you have opted for not having the health system help you.

Fine, that is your choice and herein is the key word CHOICE. People on this

list and others like it are here because we have made the choice to not let

the government or medical community determine what we can do for ourselves.

You seem to fail to recognize that we represent less than 5% of all people

out there. Most people go to the doctor and except what is said as gospel

because the man wears a white coat and says so. He is educated. He knows

best. You choose not to use the system. Obviously you are wealthy, so then

you can contribute more funds than I have to the government to help them

control other people or at least pay my share that I will not have access to

for 4 more years.

How do you think we got in the trouble we have with the FDA? If ever there

was a classic problem with government intervention in private medical

matters, here is a good example. Why do you think we are fighting a

potentially losing battle for supplements and rife equipment and

naturopathic services? It is not the people in our country who oppose these

choices, it is a corrupt government and that is precisely who you want to

administer my health plan to me? Get serious.

I think NOT! Stand back and look at just what you are proposing and then

tell me that if the government has all control over who I can see and what I

can do to heal, then this will be better? You want to socialize medicine so

that I do not have the freedom to choose and the government pays? Who do

you think the government gets its money from? How in the world can you

possibly believe that having another set of hands involved to take money

away and then redistribute it will somehow make it less expensive?

Regards,

Bruce

Re: Sicko ( ) and US Health Care

Dr. Guilmette,

I think most of us on this list are here because we have lost faith in

the medical establishment taking care of us, particularly in regard to

chronic pathologies. I would no more go through the expensive common chemo

or radiation procedures for cancer than most people on this group. Nor would

I want an organ transplant which involves luck and waiting in line here in

this country as well, plus enormous expenses. Thus, I feel I have little

need to wait in most medical lines for anything. I rely on my holistic

training. As far as acute care, broken bones, etc, I have talked to people

in Europe, UK, and Canada and such emergencies do not involve waiting in

line. In short, I stand by my words, I will take my chances and prefer any

form of socialized medicine to what we have now. M. is a spokesman for

me, but to each his own. You must be heavily bankrolled to be so confident

in our system.

cheers,

doug

RE: Sicko ( ) and US Health Care

> You remember just that thought when someone hands you a death sentence

> with

> 4 on the outside to live and cannot see anyone in a timely fashion that

> can

> do you any good. I have 3 Canadian citizens here in Michigan right now

> because they could not get help until it was too late. So, go ahead and

> stand in line. Hope you find a short one.

>

> Regards,

>

> Bruce Guilmette, Ph.D.

> http://survivecancerfoundation.org

[Guest guest]

Sorry to hear of your experience. Read about BFC(complete tissue) at

http://herballegacy.com/Complete_Tissue.html

The original formula can be purchased at www.healmarketplace.com This is the

only original formula available. It has worked well to heal broken bones and

great with frequencies. Keep 4 oz tincture and ointment on hand.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

>

> --- polo wrote:

>

> <snip>

> > As far as acute care, broken bones, etc, I

> > have talked to people

> > in Europe, UK, and Canada and such emergencies do

> > not involve waiting in

> > line.

> <snip>

>

>

> Oh really? Perhaps their definition of waiting in

> line is a little different than most other people's.

> Let me tell you about my last experience of acute care

> and what you describe as not waiting in line. This

> was less than two months ago.

>

> I had developed a problem in my lower back which

> progressed to the point where I couldn't walk and was

> in unbearable pain. I have a fairly high tolerance

> for pain, but this was over the top. Anything less

> and I wouldn't have gone to the hospital. I had to be

> wheel-chaired into the admitting area of the hospital,

> and after getting registered, I had to wait three

> hours. I couldn't take the pain of sitting up in the

> wheelchair, so I laid across a couple of chairs, with

> my feet resting on the wheelchair. After, the three

> hour wait in the waiting area, I got in and had to

> wait another half-hour or so in another waiting room

> before I got onto a bed. After the doctor checked my

> out, he sent me over over for an x-ray, which was

> another wait of perhaps a half-hour. After that, it

> was another wait for the doctor to get back around to

> check the x-ray and write out a prescription.

> Fortunately I had been given a shot of Demerol by

> then, so I wasn't too uncomfortable. By the time the

> doctor was finished with me, the first shot of Demerol

> had worn off, so they gave me a second shot. After a

> shot, you have to wait at least 45 minutes before they

> can release you, but I had to wait even longer than

> that, because there was only one nurse taking care of

> several rooms. I felt sorry for her. She didn't even

> have time to go for a break. The total amount of time

> from beginning to end was 8 and a half hours, for two

> shots of Demerol, an x-ray, and a script for Tylenol

> 3. Do you think that's reasonable?

>

> Let me tell you about the second last time I had need

> of acute care with no wait time. I had an accident at

> work, where a solid steel bar smashed my upper arm at

> high speed, and then swung down and fractured the back

> of my hand. Some of you may recall seeing me at the

> conference a few years ago with a cast on, and I have

> a permanent scar on my upper arm. Needless to say,

> this was another case of excruciating pain for a guy

> who has a fairly high tolerance for it. Did they give

> me a shot of morphine or any other pain drug, even

> after twice telling the nurse of how much pain I was

> in? No, that would be too much trouble. I waited two

> and a half hours before the doctor saw me, and by then

> all my energy was sapped to the point where any

> further suffering didn't matter. That experience was

> a total of 5 or 6 hours, just for an x-ray and a cast,

> with no pain relief.

>

> Any Canadian who tells you that there's no wait time

> for acute care is a jackass. If you're still

> breathing and are not hemorrhaging or in other

> imminent danger of death, you usually have to wait,

> sometimes for a long time. Yes, I'm sure that there

> are some places and some times where there is little

> wait, but that isn't the common experience in a big

> city like Toronto.

>

> Regards,

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi,

The replies I got to my question about Sicko and the US Health Care

system has given some interesting replies.

For those that have seen Sicko, you will realise it is not about

those without health insurance, but those with full insurance who are

still denied payment for treatment by their health insurance

companies. This is a problem unknown to people in most universal

health systems and this is what Sicko was really complaining about.

America has the most expensive health system, yet only ranks 37 in

the list of the world's health services.

I cannot help thinking that some Americans have a somewhat distorted

view of how a universal health care system works. I have lived in two

countries (UK and Germany) with such systems, and I have visited the

USA many times - my brother has even lived in the USA (Bay Area in

California and now near Orlando, Florida) for many years. After

running this group since 1999, I have a reasonable understanding of

the US system. I have never been to Canada so I cannot comment on

their system, though.

The National Health Service (NHS) in the UK is entirely paid for by

taxes. Everybody is covered for free full medical treatment, you pay

a standard charge of about $10 per prescription irrespective of how

expensive or how many medicines you require. Sure, for some highly

specialised treatments, they may be a waiting list, although even

these are now short in nearly all cases. For those that feel they

need faster treatment, they always have the option of " going private "

and being treated immediately (often by the same doctors who would

have treated them on the NHS). Of course such fees for private

consultation can be covered by private health insurance.

Nobody in the UK, I am aware of, would see the NHS as a socialist

medical system. Instead, it is seen as a fair democratic system

ensuring everybody has access to full medical services as and when

they need it irrespective of their financial status.

More details on the NHS system can be found here:

http://www.nhs.uk/Pages/homepage.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service

I lived in the UK until I was 18, my mother and sister still live

there and I am not aware of any real problems. The quality of

treatment was always very high in my experience.

I am now living in Germany which also has universal health care, yet

has a very different system to that in the UK. I personally think the

German system would be more suitable for implementation in the USA

than the NHS.

Germans either use public health insurance or private health

insurance. By default, everyone is in the public system unless they

opt out by taking private health insurance. Those that opt out, are

not permitted to return to the public system except under special

circumstances.

Although the framework of the public system (i.e. what treatment is

covered, etc.) has been defined by the government, the system is NOT

run by the government. Instead, a number of independent health

insurance companies provide full cover to a high standard. Patients

are free to choose which company they use and some even offer limited

alternative health treatments as part of their service. Unlike the UK

system, there are some services where the patient is expected to pay

a certain amount of the treatment themselves (for example, at the

dentist properly cleaning my teeth is paid for once a year. If I want

it done a second time, I have to pay 25 Euros - about $35), and the

flat rate at the chemists is per medicine, not per prescription - yet

even these charges are capped at about 2% of your income per annum.

The private health insurance system provides at least the same

service as the public system, often with additional services like

smaller rooms in hospitals or treatment by the head doctor.

Most people have just the public system, or the public system with a

private supplementary insurance to cover any charges not fully

covered by the public system.

You will find a good English language description of the German

system here: http://www.howtogermany.com/pages/healthinsurance.html

Unlike the UK system, I have never heard of patients having to wait

any unreasonable time for treatment, and certainly treatment is not

refused for financial reasons. Sure, the public system may not offer

the most expensive treatments straight away, when cheaper

alternatives are available. There has to be some incentive for

private health insurance.

Those who are ill, continue to receive full pay from their employer

for 6 weeks. After that, the health insurance company pays the income

instead.

Let me point out that both the UK and Germany have a lot of

immigrants who also have health needs - this does not have a negative

influence on quality of service, however.

So let us look at the fears expressed by American members at having a

universal health system.

> Involving government in health is not a viable solution

As having private companies manage health in the USA leads to many

people being denied health services to maximise profits, how is that

better than the systems offered in the UK and Germany. In Germany,

the service is not run by the government either, they just setup the

framework of rules.

> Access to alternative medicines

I am not sure about the NHS, although they do offer some alternative

treatments, alternative therapy is very big in Germany and covered to

a certain extent by some public health insurances and can certainly

be covered by private health insurance. Admittedly, there are some

supplements not available over the counter in chemists, but you can

always order them online. It is only a matter of time until CODEX

applies to the USA, too.

Unlike in the USA, many electronic therapies can be and are fully

approved to European medical CE standards (like the FDA in the USA)

and I know of several Rife devices fully approved for use within

Europe. TENS units can be freely bought at almost any supermarket,

whereas I believe they are only available on prescription in the USA.

> Canada Care means long waiting lists for

> necessary surgeries, denials of needed services, etc.

I do not know about Canada, but the European systems I know about do

not have these problems. I have never heard of people being denied

needed services, unlike in the USA, if the Sicko film is accurate.

> Many opt out of Insurance cover due to lousy coverage

I can understand people not wishing to pay for a service, which then

does not want to pay when you need it. That problem in the USA was

exactly what Sicko was all about. Universal health services do not

have these issues as all treatment is automatically covered.

> I don't like the idea of government run medicine, because many

> people come to the US for serious surgical conditions which they

> can't get in their own country.

Sure, the Americans spend a lot of money on expensive treatments

because that is where money is to be made. Sure, some of them may be

better than elsewhere, but the same applies to Germany, too. Germany

is renowned for its development of medical technology - that is why

the world's largest trade fair for medical equipment, Medica, is in

Germany - I visit it every year! The development of medical equipment

has nothing to do with the kind of medical care system used.

> Government programs tend to be expensive, massive failures even

> though the intent is wonderful.

That may apply to some US government programs you were referring to,

but the NHS service in the UK, as well as similar services in other

European countries are seen by the people to have been a great

success. rightly asks why the USA cannot take the best

aspects, from proven systems in other countries, and implement

universal health care in the USA.

> How in the world can you possibly believe that having another set

> of hands involved to take money away and then redistribute it will

> somehow make it less expensive?

The US health system is the most expensive in the world, yet one of

the worst in the western world. Just about all the European universal

health systems provide a better service for less money!

> 's back pain problem and waiting for treatment!

Some time ago, my girlfriend, at the time, developed severe back

pain. After attaching a TENS unit, well proven for pain relief and

it immediately reduced the pain to an acceptable level, I drove her

straight to a specialist doctor who treated her immediately. Within

about an hour, half of that was getting her to the doctor, the

problem had been diagnosed and she was being treated. This is typical

over here. No need to have any treatment pre-approved and no need to

pay the doctor anything. The doctor sends his bill straight to the

health insurance company.

> So you see PETER WALKER, why we in the USA will not likely ever get

> universal " true " health care? Not only are our politicians bought &

> paid for by Big Medicine, but we have citizens like and Dr. G

> that are against it. Big Medicine is quite safe and happy in this

> country!

Let me point out that Germany is the home of many of the largest

pharmaceutical companies and was ruled for many years by a

pharmaceutical lobbyist: Chancellor Helmut Kohl. We still have a good

functioning universal health care system in this country, though. I

agree that corruption in government is a major issue that needs to be

tackled, particularly in your country.

I also see the media to be part of the problem in the USA. Whenever I

watched US political programs especially including the news, I was

astounded how often news was presented in a biased way. Considering

the high percentage of pharmaceutical advertising on US television,

it is not hard to imagine why.

When I gave that talk about Dr. Holt at the Rife Conference last

year, where many unbiased Australian TV documentary clips were shown,

many people came and told me they had never seen journalism like that

in the USA. If anyone here missed that talk, they can see it on the

Rife Forum. Further info on Dr. Holt can also be found here:

http://www.rife.de/radio-wave_cancer_therapy.html

Finally, let me make a point made in his film, too. You

already have other universal services paid for by the government -

like the police, and fire service, roads, etc. If your house is on

fire, does the fire service only come if you pay them up front? Do

they charge you after putting out the fire? Then why should it be

different or suddenly seen to be wrong if this concept was applied to

health?

Regards

(Moderator)

Cologne, Germany

[Guest guest]

Hi Nenah,

as your reply is somewhat similar to mine, I will only comment on

those points I did not discuss in my post.

> Hi .

> Wow, your question really opened up some lively debate on this list!

Certainly did, and I think it is an important discussion, too.

> 3) If I were to make a film, I would do it quite differently and

> focus on why we are so ill, and why allopathic medicine has a

> stronghold in this country. This wasn't 's focus. I accept that

> Mr. isn't holistically inclined. He chose to focus instead on

> why one of the wealthiest countries in the world has its priorities

> so misplaced and doesn't take care of the people who live here. I

> think it's a valid question. It is one question. Perhaps not the

> question that people on this egroup would ask. But I'm glad that

> brought it up.

I agree that did not discuss the cause of illness, but that

would be another film. The fact that a lot of people get into

financial trouble due to health issues is enough for one film. I also

feel the questions he raised are legitimate.

> 4) The debate of which is better -- a free-market economy or a more

socialized system -- is not going to get resolved on this list.

Suffice it to say, if there were a genuine freedom of choice in this

country, and a genuine concern with disease prevention and holistic

modalities, this would be a very different world. In such a world,

perhaps these political debates would not be as important.

Germany's system is basically a free-market method under a framework

of universal health. I am free to choose which doctor I go to and

there are no issues regarding payment of services. Sure, natural

health treatments are not covered in most cases, but if I go to an

allopathic doctor, I have nothing to worry about concerning costs.

> 5) If everyone truly had what they needed, the issue of " I'm paying

for them and it's not fair " wouldn't be as much of an issue.

The German system provides help to those that pay into it. That is

good enough for me as I have never experienced services denied

because someone else used them up!

Within Europe, any European visiting another European country obtains

free treatment under that countries system while visiting. As the

system is reciprocal, it is fair. In Sicko, an American received free

hospital treatment while visiting the UK.

> I think that the next documentary on health will be much more

likely to address these issues. It won't be Mr. 's film. It will

be someone else's film.

Agreed.

Regards

[Guest guest]

East is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet....

My oldest son just went through an emergency situation in France last week

while traveling on business and 22 hours after admittance, he saw his first

doctor. Oh well...

We can all dredge up lots of stories to validate a point, but to what end?

I guarantee that free market from my perspective can do a better job if we

would get the government out of it altogether. Unfortunately that will

never happen and as a result we will get more of what we have and be cursed

with it besides. Government has never made things better by being involved,

only more costly and less efficient.

I don't understand why you cannot be an individual and still have corporate

responsibility. But that is another topic and another day.

Enjoy the weekend. It is beautiful here today and worthy of spending it

out-of-doors.

Regards,

Bruce Guilmette, Ph.D.

http://survivecancerfoundation.org

Re: Sicko ( ) and US Health Care

Dr G.

I disagree, but no point arguing this much further. You paint an

unlikely scenario of pure medical fascism which I believe is not likely. We

can have universal health care without losing our power of choice. Nothing

you have said has defended how we must stop the robbery being experienced in

our current system from exaggerated price tags of drugs, care, procedures.

Do we just let this continue onward unabated? As I said, I have experienced

this first hand and I was only kept out of the poor house by luckily being

insured at the time of my accident. I much prefer higher taxes to bankruptcy

from catastrophic illness.

Like it or not, we are a nation, a society. We are a social creature on

this earth. Until we all become hermits living separately, we are in this

world together. Having our neighbors not be subjected to poverty is in our

best interests. I have long been a follower of Ayn Rand and her philosophy

of objectivism, but we cannot carry individualism to such extremes as you

seem to covet. Impossible.

thanks for the exchange,

doug

RE: Sicko ( ) and US Health Care

> No, I am not heavily bankrolled by anyone. I retired because of terminal

> cancer. I cannot collect my 401K's without significant penalty until

> retirement age AS DEFINED BY THE GOVERNMENT even though I am still listed

> as

> TERMINAL. I have now been fighting this ruling from the government for

> just

> a little less than 16 months. And I should be in favor of more government

> control? Lets turn this up a notch. I can't use my own money to live on

> because I am not old enough even though I am in theory not going to live

> to

> see 62.

>

> I do not really like our system but I have no love for socialized medicine

> either. I simply do not see how getting a government involved in something

> has ever made it better. Government programs tend to be expensive,

> massive

> failures even though the intent is wonderful. I am not saying that

> motives

> are impure, but I do not see a corrupt Washington environment as the

> salvation of anything. Government control of anything is about power

> first.

> I am not a conspiracy theorist or off the wall nut of some kind. I just

> think that life is better with less government in my life, not more. I

> have

> yet to see one single instance in my life where having the government make

> a

> decision for me has been of benefit. I am cut off from my own money. I

> cannot openly use my RIFE equipment to help other people. I cannot openly

> tell people that natural cures better than pharmaceuticals without threat

> of

> going to jail. Now how is having the government involved in my life

> making

> it better right now? How is giving them even more authority to control

> finances and medical help going to benefit me even further than they

> already

> have?

>

> You mention that you have opted for not having the health system help you.

> Fine, that is your choice and herein is the key word CHOICE. People on

> this

> list and others like it are here because we have made the choice to not

> let

> the government or medical community determine what we can do for

> ourselves.

> You seem to fail to recognize that we represent less than 5% of all people

> out there. Most people go to the doctor and except what is said as gospel

> because the man wears a white coat and says so. He is educated. He knows

> best. You choose not to use the system. Obviously you are wealthy, so then

> you can contribute more funds than I have to the government to help them

> control other people or at least pay my share that I will not have access

> to

> for 4 more years.

>

> How do you think we got in the trouble we have with the FDA? If ever

> there

> was a classic problem with government intervention in private medical

> matters, here is a good example. Why do you think we are fighting a

> potentially losing battle for supplements and rife equipment and

> naturopathic services? It is not the people in our country who oppose

> these

> choices, it is a corrupt government and that is precisely who you want to

> administer my health plan to me? Get serious.

>

> I think NOT! Stand back and look at just what you are proposing and then

> tell me that if the government has all control over who I can see and what

> I

> can do to heal, then this will be better? You want to socialize medicine

> so

> that I do not have the freedom to choose and the government pays? Who do

> you think the government gets its money from? How in the world can you

> possibly believe that having another set of hands involved to take money

> away and then redistribute it will somehow make it less expensive?

>

> Regards,

>

> Bruce

[Guest guest]

,

I couldn't agree with you more. I loved s film, he touched on

many important issues. But it had many flaws in it. In the US,

medical care is in trouble, but non medical care of illness is thriving!

25 % of all health care practitioners are not MD's, and are using

non medical means to treat patients. Chiropractic, Massage,

Acupuncture, Homeopathy, Naturopathy, Herabalists, Nutritionists and

so on, all are non medical in philosophy and treatment.

60+% of all inoffice visits to a health care provider are for non

medical treatment - source the AMA.This large % of health care is

being delivered for a total of about 3% of the total amount spent on

health care each year in the US.

Non medical treatment is highly cost effective and for the most part

paid for out of pocket by patients. One might think that the

government would be doing everything it could to encourage research

and further development of non medical health care treatments.

Obviously such is not the case. The problem is a general one.

Governments are not rational - they are mostly reactionary. A

problem arises - they try in some bizarre manner to fix it. Only

rarely does the fix function adequately. So they toss billions at

the medical model for treatment of this or that disease. They spend

billions on treatment - not physiological correction of the cause.

The medical model of health care consumes 97% of the total spent on

health care per year.

Market demands and patient response are why there is a growing focus

in the medical world on CAM and Integrative treatments. Costs are

also why the use of frequency devices are growing in popularity at a

geometric rate. Frequency devices work, and even some of the more

expensive units - will more than pay for themselves.

The cost of Medical care ( notice I didn't say non medical) is

growing at 8% per year here in the US. The law of 72's means that a

procedure that costs 60,000 dollars today ( having a finger

reattached ) is going to cost $120,000 in 9 years.

Due to costs, socialized medicine in the US is coming. The best

anyone can do is to make certain that what is implemented allows for

the continued freedom of people to choose a method of health care

that suits their needs. A one method system ( medical only), is not

in anyones best interest, and will adversely affect the health of

tens of millions of Americans.

Jim Bare

>. Why are there so

>many sick people in the first place? Why doesn't he

>address that question? Why does so-called health care

>cost so much? I'll tell you why. Because there's no

>true freedom of choice and open competition. If there

>were, I can guarantee that things would be better.

>There are many doctors who would gladly use cheaper

>and more cost effective methods if they weren't afraid

>of losing their license.

[Guest guest]

--- polo wrote:

> ,

>

> I am sure there is no perfect health care system

> out there, but you are

> lucky to have the safety net you have. There will

> always be disgruntled

> patients, no matter what system. No system is

> perfect.

This has nothing to do with disgruntled patients. It

has to do with people being denied the liberty to

choose the form of medical treatment they want, and

being forced to buy into a system that brings

everybody down to the lowest common denominator.

> You apparently have

> no idea what it would be like to finance expensive

> hospital stays in the

> USA. I was in the hospital in the early 1990s for a

> spinal cord injury and

> my expenses were well over $150,000 in a few weeks.

> Had I not had private

> insurance, I would have been ruined for the reminder

> of my life.

Since your insurance paid for your treatment, it is

apparent that you also have no idea what it's like to

finance an expensive hospital stay.

> I know of

> countless less fortunate people who were ruined,

> lost every thing they

> worked their lives for and they died from cancer any

> way. Their families

> came out of it, destitute.

A more fundamental question is why were you able to

afford insurance, but they weren't? Also, if America

was truly the land of the free, there wouldn't be a

system in place where you're stuck with only two

choices; insurance or destitution.

> You have no idea how

> fortunate you are to live in

> a country that has at least some type of safety net

> for those that may need

> it.

Actually, I do know how fortunate I am to live in a

country that has a safety net, but we're not talking

about a safety net. We're talking about whether

people should be responsible for their own lives and

whether they should have the maximum amount of freedom

to choose how they're going to live, and how they're

going to receive medical treatment, and also whether

they're going to be protected from being defrauded by

insurance companies. 's film was about people

who have insurance, but are being shafted by their

insurance companies.

> As far as your opinion on M. , I say, you

> simply do not know him.

And how many times have you been over to his house for

a cup of tea or a beer? Or do you perhaps think you

know him because you've seen his films?

> Have you actually seen his work?

Yes, I've seen his last three films, and probably some

bits of some of his other films.

> He has stood up

> for the little guy for

> years.

> If you want to call him a socialist, go

> ahead, but you are the

> " propagandist " in this regard.

That's what socialists do; with good intentions, they

stand up for for one special interest group of people,

what you call the little guy, instead of standing up

for all people to have equal rights and maximum

freedom. It's no different than what the elitists do.

> I think, if you

> actually saw SICKO, you

> would know he really did question the mechanism of

> why the USA health care

> is so expensive. He goes into great detail how

> politicians are bought to

> protect big Pharm's profits. He goes into further

> detail of why costs in the

> USA are so out of control with no checks & balances.

I did see it, and like I said, he whitewashes over the

more fundamental issues. The fundamental issue here,

and in most other issues is freedom, a subject you

show little understanding or appreciation for.

America as the the land of the free with your

celebrated constitution has become a SICKO joke. If

and others focused their energies on restoring

true freedom, issues like health care would naturally

resolve.

> I never perceived the

> theme from any of his documentaries that he is

> trying to tell us what we

> should do, he is only showing another side to the

> story which needs to be

> shown.

As I said before, he's very crafty at his art, and I'm

not surprised at all the you can't perceive his

manipulation. If I remember correctly, he admitted

that his goal with Fahrenheit 9/11 was to sway the

election. Yes, he does show another side to the

story, but the way in which he shows it is in a manner

that manipulates our emotions. I myself have been

emotionally moved by his films, even while consciously

being aware that he's manipulating me. He's very good

at that.

> To you and Dr. G, who seems to think Canadians

> prefer our health system,

> I sure don't see any Canadians coming to the USA's

> pharmacies to buy drugs.

> True, the wealthy ones may come across for expensive

> procedures not offered

> at home, but you will have to prove to me that this

> is a common occurrence,

> otherwise, I just don't believe it and it has not

> been by perception from

> those Canadians, I have known.

Nobody said that Canadians prefer your system, but I

would be willing to wager that most of us would like

the freedom to choose beyond the scraps that are

handed down to us by the government. As things are

now, I can use my money on all sorts of things that

are ruinous to my health, but I can use my money to

buy better health care than what the government

offers. I can buy insurance and better care for my

cat, but not myself.

> At any rate, you are

> really missing the

> point, is not saying he has the answer to any

> thing, only that every

> USA citizen deserves to have minimal health care

> without losing his life

> savings.

If that's the only point he was trying to make, then

he shouldn't have held up systems like the Canadian

one, where we're stuck with a monopoly and are taxed

through the nose to support it. Having a minimal

" safety net " as you call it would be a good thing, but

anything beyond that is a violation of liberty. You

can't have justice for one person at the expense of

another.

> We live in a country dictated by legalized

> drug/health care sharks

> that know they can charge the highest prices in the

> world and get away with

> it.

Well, that is a far more fundamental issue that

underlies why so many people can't afford health care.

To implement a socialized system that these sharks are

still in control of is a simple-minded proposition

indeed.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

Hi :

You make some very good points. It sounds like

Germany has a much better system than Canada, and I

think the main reason is because it's not run by the

government. Setting the framework and rules, so that

the people are protected from getting cheated by the

insurance companies, is a reasonable compromise for

government involvement.

The point about already having universal services such

as police etc., is a good one, but the difference is

that in health, many situations are the result of

personal choices the individual has made in their

life. Why should the people who try to take good care

of their health and rarely use the medical system have

to pay for the health care of people who choose to

live an unhealthy lifestyle? I think that's what

many people object to in a socialized system.

As Doug said, no system is perfect. That's exactly

why the system that gives the most individual freedom

is best. Having more taxes, more government control,

and throwing more money at the problem will not truly

solve anything.

I'm reminded of an analogy that you might appreciate:

In an episode of Star Trek TNG called " Booby Trap " ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booby_Trap_(TNG_episode)

they were stuck in a trap and the harder they tried to

get out with more power, more control, more

adjustments, the worse off they got. The solution

ended up being to turn everything off except for

minimal life support and one or two thrusters. The

subtle navigation and ingenuity of the captain got the

ship out of danger and saved the day. The same could

apply to government involvement in people's lives.

The better approach is not to have more taxes, more

programs, more control, but to turn everything off and

let people be responsible and live their own lives.

When people are allowed to pursue their own

self-interest, while being prevented from interfering

with other people doing the same, then there will be a

far more equitable system.

Regards,

--- wrote:

> Hi,

> The replies I got to my question about Sicko and the

> US Health Care

> system has given some interesting replies.

>

> For those that have seen Sicko, you will realise it

> is not about

> those without health insurance, but those with full

> insurance who are

> still denied payment for treatment by their health

> insurance

> companies. This is a problem unknown to people in

> most universal

> health systems and this is what Sicko was really

> complaining about.

> America has the most expensive health system, yet

> only ranks 37 in

> the list of the world's health services.

>

> I cannot help thinking that some Americans have a

> somewhat distorted

> view of how a universal health care system works. I

> have lived in two

> countries (UK and Germany) with such systems, and I

> have visited the

> USA many times - my brother has even lived in the

> USA (Bay Area in

> California and now near Orlando, Florida) for many

> years. After

> running this group since 1999, I have a reasonable

> understanding of

> the US system. I have never been to Canada so I

> cannot comment on

> their system, though.

>

> The National Health Service (NHS) in the UK is

> entirely paid for by

> taxes. Everybody is covered for free full medical

> treatment, you pay

> a standard charge of about $10 per prescription

> irrespective of how

> expensive or how many medicines you require. Sure,

> for some highly

> specialised treatments, they may be a waiting list,

> although even

> these are now short in nearly all cases. For those

> that feel they

> need faster treatment, they always have the option

> of " going private "

> and being treated immediately (often by the same

> doctors who would

> have treated them on the NHS). Of course such fees

> for private

> consultation can be covered by private health

> insurance.

>

> Nobody in the UK, I am aware of, would see the NHS

> as a socialist

> medical system. Instead, it is seen as a fair

> democratic system

> ensuring everybody has access to full medical

> services as and when

> they need it irrespective of their financial status.

>

> More details on the NHS system can be found here:

> http://www.nhs.uk/Pages/homepage.aspx

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service

>

> I lived in the UK until I was 18, my mother and

> sister still live

> there and I am not aware of any real problems. The

> quality of

> treatment was always very high in my experience.

>

> I am now living in Germany which also has universal

> health care, yet

> has a very different system to that in the UK. I

> personally think the

> German system would be more suitable for

> implementation in the USA

> than the NHS.

>

> Germans either use public health insurance or

> private health

> insurance. By default, everyone is in the public

> system unless they

> opt out by taking private health insurance. Those

> that opt out, are

> not permitted to return to the public system except

> under special

> circumstances.

>

> Although the framework of the public system (i.e.

> what treatment is

> covered, etc.) has been defined by the government,

> the system is NOT

> run by the government. Instead, a number of

> independent health

> insurance companies provide full cover to a high

> standard. Patients

> are free to choose which company they use and some

> even offer limited

> alternative health treatments as part of their

> service. Unlike the UK

> system, there are some services where the patient is

> expected to pay

> a certain amount of the treatment themselves (for

> example, at the

> dentist properly cleaning my teeth is paid for once

> a year. If I want

> it done a second time, I have to pay 25 Euros -

> about $35), and the

> flat rate at the chemists is per medicine, not per

> prescription - yet

> even these charges are capped at about 2% of your

> income per annum.

>

> The private health insurance system provides at

> least the same

> service as the public system, often with additional

> services like

> smaller rooms in hospitals or treatment by the head

> doctor.

>

> Most people have just the public system, or the

> public system with a

> private supplementary insurance to cover any charges

> not fully

> covered by the public system.

>

> You will find a good English language description of

> the German

> system here:

>

http://www.howtogermany.com/pages/healthinsurance.html

>

> Unlike the UK system, I have never heard of patients

> having to wait

> any unreasonable time for treatment, and certainly

> treatment is not

> refused for financial reasons. Sure, the public

> system may not offer

> the most expensive treatments straight away, when

> cheaper

> alternatives are available. There has to be some

> incentive for

> private health insurance.

>

> Those who are ill, continue to receive full pay from

> their employer

> for 6 weeks. After that, the health insurance

> company pays the income

> instead.

>

> Let me point out that both the UK and Germany have a

> lot of

> immigrants who also have health needs - this does

> not have a negative

> influence on quality of service, however.

>

> So let us look at the fears expressed by American

> members at having a

> universal health system.

>

> > Involving government in health is not a viable

> solution

>

> As having private companies manage health in the USA

> leads to many

> people being denied health services to maximise

> profits, how is that

> better than the systems offered in the UK and

> Germany. In Germany,

> the service is not run by the government either,

> they just setup the

> framework of rules.

>

> > Access to alternative medicines

>

> I am not sure about the NHS, although they do offer

> some alternative

> treatments, alternative therapy is very big in

> Germany and covered to

> a certain extent by some public health insurances

> and can certainly

> be covered by private health insurance. Admittedly,

> there are some

> supplements not available over the counter in

> chemists, but you can

> always order them online. It is only a matter of

> time until CODEX

> applies to the USA, too.

>

> Unlike in the USA, many electronic therapies can be

> and are fully

> approved to European medical CE standards (like the

> FDA in the USA)

> and I know of several Rife devices fully approved

> for use within

> Europe. TENS units can be freely bought at almost

> any supermarket,

> whereas I believe they are only available on

> prescription in the USA.

>

> > Canada Care means long waiting lists for

> > necessary surgeries, denials of needed services,

> etc.

>

> I do not know about Canada, but the European systems

> I know about do

> not have these problems. I have never heard of

> people being denied

> needed services, unlike in the USA, if the Sicko

> film is accurate.

>

> > Many opt out of Insurance cover due to lousy

> coverage

>

> I can understand people not wishing to pay for a

> service, which then

> does not want to pay when you need it. That problem

> in the USA was

> exactly what Sicko was all about. Universal health

> services do not

> have these issues as all treatment is automatically

> covered.

>

> > I don't like the idea of government run medicine,

> because many

> > people come to the US for serious surgical

> conditions which they

> > can't get in their own country.

>

> Sure, the Americans spend a lot of money on

> expensive treatments

> because that is where money is to be made. Sure,

> some of them may be

> better than elsewhere, but the same applies to

> Germany, too. Germany

> is renowned for its development of medical

> technology - that is why

> the world's largest trade fair for medical

> equipment, Medica, is in

> Germany - I visit it every year! The development of

> medical equipment

> has nothing to do with the kind of medical care

> system used.

>

> > Government programs tend to be expensive, massive

> failures even

> > though the intent is wonderful.

>

> That may apply to some US government programs you

> were referring to,

> but the NHS service in the UK, as well as similar

> services in other

> European countries are seen by the people to have

> been a great

> success. rightly asks why the USA

> cannot take the best

> aspects, from proven systems in other countries, and

> implement

> universal health care in the USA.

>

> > How in the world can you possibly believe that

> having another set

> > of hands involved to take money away and then

> redistribute it will

> > somehow make it less expensive?

>

> The US health system is the most expensive in the

> world, yet one of

> the worst in the western world. Just about all the

> European universal

> health systems provide a better service for less

> money!

>

> > 's back pain problem and waiting for

> treatment!

>

> Some time ago, my girlfriend, at the time, developed

> severe back

> pain. After attaching a TENS unit, well proven for

> pain relief and

> it immediately reduced the pain to an acceptable

> level, I drove her

> straight to a specialist doctor who treated her

> immediately. Within

> about an hour, half of that was getting her to the

> doctor, the

> problem had been diagnosed and she was being

> treated. This is typical

> over here. No need to have any treatment

> pre-approved and no need to

> pay the doctor anything. The doctor sends his bill

> straight to the

> health insurance company.

>

> > So you see PETER WALKER, why we in the USA will

> not likely ever get

> > universal " true " health care? Not only are our

> politicians bought &

> > paid for by Big Medicine, but we have citizens

> like and Dr. G

> > that are against it. Big Medicine is quite safe

> and happy in this

> > country!

>

> Let me point out that Germany is the home of many of

> the largest

> pharmaceutical companies and was ruled for many

> years by a

> pharmaceutical lobbyist: Chancellor Helmut Kohl. We

> still have a good

> functioning universal health care system in this

> country, though. I

> agree that corruption in government is a major issue

> that needs to be

> tackled, particularly in your country.

>

> I also see the media to be part of the problem in

> the USA. Whenever I

> watched US political programs especially including

> the news, I was

> astounded how often news was presented in a biased

> way. Considering

> the high percentage of pharmaceutical advertising on

> US television,

> it is not hard to imagine why.

>

> When I gave that talk about Dr. Holt at the Rife

> Conference last

> year, where many unbiased Australian TV documentary

> clips were shown,

> many people came and told me they had never seen

> journalism like that

> in the USA. If anyone here missed that talk, they

> can see it on the

> Rife Forum. Further info on Dr. Holt can also be

> found here:

> http://www.rife.de/radio-wave_cancer_therapy.html

>

> Finally, let me make a point made in

> his film, too. You

> already have other universal services paid for by

> the government -

> like the police, and fire service, roads, etc. If

> your house is on

> fire, does the fire service only come if you pay

> them up front? Do

> they charge you after putting out the fire? Then why

> should it be

> different or suddenly seen to be wrong if this

> concept was applied to

> health?

>

> Regards

>

>

> (Moderator)

> Cologne, Germany

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- Nenah Sylver wrote:

<snip>

> Nevertheless, I would still prefer a

> cost-free system with a wait to one that is not

> cost-free with a wait.

<snip>

There's no such thing as a cost-free system. We still

pay for our system, but the costs are more hidden,

because we don't pay directly at the time of

treatment. Our costs are in the form of much higher

taxes, along with a bigger and more wasteful

bureaucracy. I remember reading many years ago that

Canada has more people working in government per

capita than any other country. I don't know if that's

true now or if it ever was true, but it doesn't

surprise me.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

--- polo wrote:

> ,

>

> Well, with all due respect, I guess we all have

> different perceptions of

> what constitute long wait lines. I would feel that a

> few hours of waiting

> which you describe from personal experiences, is not

> really much of a wait

> at all. When I broke my back, I had a similar wait

> at a hospital, and I was

> in far worse condition and pain than you describe.

> It was a 10 hour or so

> ordeal and this is a non-socialized medicine

> country! They wanted all of my

> insurance information, countless interviews, etc

> before I was even admitted.

> Then it took forever for examination and treatment

> to begin. What you

> describe is simply the way our current medical

> establishment works, no

> matter who funds the system. I will take your

> described pain/discomfort any

> day and your 8 or so hours in-house to the many

> thousand of dollars that

> would have been charged in this country for exactly

> what you went through. I

> doubt you would have been treated too much

> differently or saved too much

> more time in this country. Sad, isn't it?

If you have long wait times with your current system,

do you think that socializing it will improve things?

If you had to wait 10 hours with your current system,

under socialism, you'll wait double or triple that.

> Nevertheless, you do not address my main

> complaint. How a person can be

> financially ruined so easily from fees of drugs,

> doctors, hospital care in

> this country.

<snip>

The reason a person can be financially ruined under

your current system is because there's no free choice.

If you had a multitude of options, you would choose

the best that you could afford, and the competition

would make everything cheaper, because they would

rather have a little profit than no profit at all.

> So you see PETER WALKER, why we in the USA will

> not likely ever get

> universal " true " health care? Not only are our

> politicians bought & paid for

> by Big Medicine, but we have citizens like and

> Dr. G that are against

> it. Big Medicine is quite safe and happy in this

> country!

Actually, I'm opposed to universal health care that

Big Medicine is in control of, not the idea of having

a universal safety net for those who need it. I'm

opposed to a system whose lack of freedom allows Big

Medicine to arise in the first place.

I'd also like to point out that there's no such thing

as " free " health care; someone has to pay for it. If

you have the government spend your money for you,

after they take their large administrative cut,

they'll spend what's left far more wastefully than you

would if you spent it directly. As the late Milton

Friedman said, nobody spends someone else's money as

carefully as they spend their own. That's the

fundamental reason why government involvement is a bad

idea.

Regards,

[Guest guest]

Dear Group,

Reading through the blizzard of responses on this subject, I was

struck by a near total absence of reference to the self- use of

alternative therapies, and especially any references to Rife equipment

and procedures.

For myself and my wife, with the exception of several unavoidable

situations, neither of us has needed to see a physician in nearly 40

years. Alternative therapies work nicely.

When I first started to explore the possibilities available through

Rife techniques, there were a good number of sellers of suspicious

equipment and lots of mis-information floating around, with precious

few people whose recommendations you could follow without worry or

concern. Prices for equipment ranged from ridiculously low to

ridiculously high, and, aside from the time-worn frequency tables,

there was little quality information you could use to guide yourself

through the maze of possibilities.

Fortunately, much of that has changed. Today, there are a number of

individuals whose reputations have been established because they

provide reliable equipment, used by substantial numbers of people.

Some of those making and selling devices have struggled mightily to

produce equipment at very reasonable cost- and they have succeeded

admirably. There are many sources of good, tested formulas available,

and there is now quite a large body of reports confirming Rife works.

Perhaps I have mis-read the letters, because if you have broken your

back, or if you have been mugged and are cut and bleeding, you don't

need Rife. True emergency situations, especially those involving

traumatic injury, are very well treated in American hospitals, and not

always at costs which would bankrupt the national treasury of a medium

sized country. In that regard, 's movie and the comments of this

group are points to be well taken.

However, in terms of overall medical care, I am dismayed at what I

perceive is a continued reliance, even among members of this group,

upon " BigMed-BigPharma " . If WE are not able to break free of a

dependence upon these two health organizations, what chance is there

for those who know nothing of the tools and techniques we have at our

disposal? If you couple that ignorance with widespread disinterest in

preventive techniques (we still sell cigarettes) and proper

nutritional controls (Mac's still reigns supreme), then I fear

there is little hope for healthcare, no matter what the system of

administration or who pays for it.

Good health to all,

Dr. S. N. Berger

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr. Berger

I think we all are rife followers here. I have a rife/bare machine

myself. The original ( ) post that instigated this discussion had

nothing to do with rife technology, but only asked our opinion on the M.

documentary. Of course, since SICKO did not cover alternative medicine

and particularly rife, we did not discuss it in that context. Rest assured

that probably all of us will favor the alternative route over the allopathic

even in traumatic injury.

doug

----- Original Message -----

> Reading through the blizzard of responses on this subject, I was

> struck by a near total absence of reference to the self- use of

> alternative therapies, and especially any references to Rife equipment

> and procedures.

> Dr. S. N. Berger