Thanks, Chaos ~ for anyone interested in contacting their own reps, http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ is a terrific, interactive site to find the email addresses for your own Senate and House representatives ~ I am emailing my 3 tonight ~ and I'm searching for an email for Kathleen Sebelius too ~

Sooz

Ahem....how often a little word like If is overlooked!!  It makes a big difference in considering the whole post...Reality check:  today fat cat surgeons all over the world are literally fleecing the health insurance dollars performing surgeries on the elderly to prolong life while thousands of children are going without basic necessities of health care, such as dentistry, vision care, etc.  So because they haven't worked and paid into the system the children should go without? that sounds pretty cold and callous to me....I said if there must be restrictions, then let the restrictions fall on the older ones, not the younger...doesn't mean I cadone restrictions...doesn't mean I want Granny to go without her insulin, or new knee (after all, she might want to run a marathon, and her new bypass will hold up to the strain...) certainly it does not mean I want all the little "angels unaware" to be euthanized before they're out of the womb!  Firstly, I'm 59 and facing a rough retirement (and possible unemployment in near future:  God forbid, but it is a real possible scenario) am twice widowed and believe it or not, I enjoy life, have spent most of my life taking care of the elderly, happen to think Octogenarians are some of the wisest people in the world, etc.  But we're talking about the life of a 5 yr. old who is being denied some expensive treatment, but the insurance doesn't bat so much as an eyelash at paying for Granny's one bypass graft when truth is she's probably get along fine without it....(I'm not talking about 5 or 6 grafts in which case obviously there is a need)--Granny's knee aches, so she goes and gets a new one...meanwhile a young person suffers from scarred lungs from years of neglecting his asthma when he was younger...Reality check:  the young are being left out in the cold when it comes to healthcare dollars, while the old are hogging the dollars...it just ain't right!!

Living in the UK, I echo Sid's post.
It is inconceivable to me that a profit margin element would be a consideration, (far less a primary consideration), in the provision of healthcare.

Frankly I am absolutely appalled at the US system, the tolerance of which, inflicts untold suffering and preventable fatalities upon it's own people.
It's not a choice between caring for a child or grandma, in a modern, civilised society we are obligated to care for both.
Re-direct a portion of the ridiculous sums the US invests in it's giant killing machine, (which pretends to protect Americans citizens from harm), and plough it into protecting them from the real daily harm, trauma and threat of bankruptcy millions are subjected to at home to indulge the obscene greed of a few.

Another item to add to the "Why Murrica Sucks" list.

You'll have to ditch that avatar first... ouch!

Damn thing broke my eardrums it's so loud. [img]/domainskins/bypass/img/smileys/wink.gif[/img]

Not with us Canucks.

By the way, "experimental" treatments are covered in Canada in some instances.
My ex mother-in-law in Ontario was treated for a form of leukemia. Conventional treatments failed. The last option was an "unapproved" pill that was being researched and developed at Uof T (if I'm not mistaken). The treatment was approved in spite of some serious side effects. The cancer was beaten but the side effects had to be dealt with. Following the treatment she had to get a platelet injection every week for the rest of her life. That life was another 10 years... that's some 500 platelet injections. All was covered under OHIP - Ontario's health care system. She died last November at age 82.

Methinks there's a basic difference in philosophy. Canada values human life over money while the US values money over human life.

The US as a nation values money over all else, I'm afraid.

I would revise that to the Republicans value money over all else.  The liberals  have always been concerned with the human condition

My problem with experimental treatments is not the cost, but the danger or possible fraud. Celebrex and Vioxx were rushed to market only to find they killed people.  Lobotomy was an approved treatment fro many mental and behavioral ailments at one time.  Even HRT- a massive long term study was stopped mid track becasuse the risk of heart disease was so high.  I know when you are dying anyway there is nothing to lose- so what if you die from it when the outcome is inevitable? But I remember a scene from the movie Man in the Moon when Jim Carrey, playing Andy Kaufmann, went to Tibet to this "miracle healer" and the look on him when he saw the fraud behind the scene jsut before  his "treatment".  Sometimes, it does matter.