universal healthcare

[heavycola]

So, is healthcare a human right, heavycola?

The UN thinks so.

Well glory alleluia praise the Lord and Hail Mary. The U-diddley-N, in their infinite wisdom, think so. How could I, humble citizen of earth, question such a mighty body of illuminati?

Is that it? No actual response, or answer to the main point of my post, just some more overcooked sarcasm?

I used the declaration of human rights as one reference point, that's all. It is, after all, the most-recognised effort globally to define and codify 'human rights', but what 's that next to your own faultless reasoning, nappy? If you'd like to argue that it shouldn't be on there, please do.

Curmudgeon, as a taxpayer (Nappy i'm afraid the VAT on Boys Own magazine doesn't count) do you resent subsididing other peoples' road use, or police protection, or right to a fair trial? Essentially, it seems we all agree that the state has a duty to pay for certain, universally used facilities and services - the question here is, why should the health of a state's citizens be excluded?

[tzor]

So, is healthcare a human right, heavycola?

The UN thinks so. Article 25 of the declaration of human rights:

'Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care'

Ugh, why is it that the R.P.I. graduate whose college didn't have an English requirement at the time is always the one correcting people on very bad interpertations of the English language. Article 25 does not declare healthcare a human right. Article 25 declares that everyone has a right "to a standard of living" and defines that standard of living as something that is "adequte for the health and well-being of himself and of his family ... and medical care." The right is to a minimial standard of living which can in turn be used to provide these things.

[heavycola]

So, is healthcare a human right, heavycola?

The UN thinks so. Article 25 of the declaration of human rights:

'Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care'

Ugh, why is it that the R.P.I. graduate whose college didn't have an English requirement at the time is always the one correcting people on very bad interpertations of the English language. Article 25 does not declare healthcare a human right. Article 25 declares that everyone has a right "to a standard of living" and defines that standard of living as something that is "adequte for the health and well-being of himself and of his family ... and medical care." The right is to a minimial standard of living which can in turn be used to provide these things.

I didn't want to argue this point, but...
Seems to me the right to healthcare is fully encompassed in the right to a decent 'standard of living'.
So how should a decent standard of living be provided to people?

[tzor]

I didn't want to argue this point, but...

Seems to me the right to healthcare is fully encompassed in the right to a decent 'standard of living'.

So how should a decent standard of living be provided to people?

A "right" to healthcare would mean that the government is responsible to ensure that everyone sees the doctor. A right to a decent standard of living so that a person can ensure proper healthcare for him and his family means that the government should encourage, promote, and ensure that a person has a sufficient standard of living so that they can be able to acquire proper healthcare. Note that in the later, both the standard of living and the proper healthcare can be provided by the private sector or even by chairtable organizations.

This standard of living needs to allow for adequate nutrition (but that's related to health because starving people are prone to illness) as well as clothing and shelter (also related to health) and finally "medical care." But in one sense this is more well related to wellness than health, although good health is required for wellness.

How should this be accomplished? A variety of means could be employed. Safety nets, wage laws, are all methods to ensure that the standard of living never goes below the minimum level for proper wellness. Unfortunately this and of itself doesn't really address the need for the other aspects of what we commonly call healthcare.

[Curmudgeonx]

Heavycola states:

Curmudgeon, as a taxpayer (Nappy i'm afraid the VAT on Boys Own magazine doesn't count) do you resent subsididing other peoples' road use, or police protection, or right to a fair trial? Essentially, it seems we all agree that the state has a duty to pay for certain, universally used facilities and services - the question here is, why should the health of a state's citizens be excluded?

Subsidizing other's road/police/court system are services that I also use, the police/courts are fundamental infrastructures to a free society (if implemented correctly). Roads are somewhat different as the construction and maintenance has been assumed by government (i.e. Appian Way, King's Way, etc.) but exceptions do exist (toll-roads). Roads have been given over to the government by default more than any sort of ideological acceptance.

However, I get minimal use from the police, significant and vital use of the court system, and moderate use of the roads.
Based on that two things come to mind:

1) I would get no use from UHC but for the fact that it would be forced upon me; and

2) Road upkeep is perpetuated by gasoline taxes (mainly) meaning a more progressive tax (those who use more, pay more), Court system is funded greatly by the fines/levies assessed to criminals/litigants, once again progressive (those who use more, pay more) and Police are also funded (albeit only partly) from the participation in the court system wealth.

Linking these two thoughts: The US's offering of UHC has never been explained as to who or how it would be paid for. Juan Bottom keeps saying "oh, your tax burden wouldn't be that high", I say "Well, shit, look at Sweden with only 9 million people and a 59% top tax rate, now convert that to 300 million people, how bad will my tax rate be?"

I would postulate that the funding of UHC, (services that I don't need) would be squarely placed upon my back, and not funded through a "usage" type of progressive tax (i.e. roads, courts, police). They can't regressive tax the poor/lower middle class; that is who UHC is for, (if they could afford it, they would already have it). The corporations won't pay, although worker health is probably in their best interests, because that is not the goal of business entities (to support the population). The rich sure as f*ck aren't going to pay; they have the best lobby in existence (i.e. the congressmen who would vote something like this in). So who does that leave? Me.

And as much as Juan believes that

I would do all that I can to help my neighbor. And out where I live, we do.

And the world will be a better place.

, that naive approach is not founded in real world scenarios (albeit cynical). Shuffle along this mortal coil without parental support for longer than a year or two, and you would realize that Mayberry ended when televisions went to color. You cannot change people, and as Hume said "life is nasty, brutish and short". I wish we could all live in a Coca-Cola commercial where we all sing together and hold hands, but that is not who we are, and not likely to happen anytime soon without some form of technological development (free energy). But that is another topic.

[Juan_Bottom]

I don't like this argument one bit, TZOR. By saying 'standard of healthcare,' you are creating a double standard. Because here in America, not everyone gets treated the same by health care providers. By which I mean, someone with a history of cancer cannot get any medical insurance at all.
You are saying that everyone has the 'right,' but not everyone can exercise their 'right.'

And as far as standard of living goes, that is another double standard. The government should help it citizens to better themeselves, but really, it doesn't really care. Making this another 'right,' that you cannot freely exercise. Case in point, the housing market crash. I was a part of it, and I know that they did it on purpose. So how does that raise the American standard of living?

I don't see how the private sector can provide healthcare for everyone, they aren't now. The companies doing it now are all private, monopolized corporations. And by law, they are required to make the most money that they can for stockholders. I don't see how mixing profit, and medicine is ever a good idea.....There is no better argument than to look at the system in practice.

[Juan_Bottom]

And as much as Juan believes that I would do all that I can to help my neighbor. And out where I live, we do.

And the world will be a better place., that naive approach is not founded in real world scenarios (albeit cynical). Shuffle along this mortal coil without parental support for longer than a year or two, and you would realize that Mayberry ended when televisions went to color. You cannot change people, and as Hume said "life is nasty, brutish and short". I wish we could all live in a Coca-Cola commercial where we all sing together and hold hands, but that is not who we are, and not likely to happen anytime soon without some form of technological development (free energy). But that is another topic.

I think you missed my point. This is how my community acts. I am from a small town in corn country, and I really don't know the world that you are talking about. This place is Mayberry. All the arguments that I am hearing on here stem from greed. A reluctance to part ways with your money, to save another person.

Everytime someone out here gets sick, and cannot afford it, we have another raffle down at the Legion Hall. We just have a strong sense of community that you all don't seem to have. Call me niave, but that is where I am from.

[Curmudgeonx]

Everytime someone out here gets sick, and cannot afford it, we have another raffle down at the Legion Hall. We just have a strong sense of community that you all don't seem to have. Call me niave, but that is where I am from.

But that is by choice; your community holds a voluntary raffle down at the American Legion for one or two sick people.

1) it is voluntary and the money is placed directly with the individual or the healthcare provider for the assistance of the individual. This is pretty efficient.
and

2) Now talk to me about economy of scale (which no one has addressed). That simple system may work for 400-500 people helping one, but buff that up to 300 million people, with inefficiencies, greed, neglect, ignorance, and government bureaucracy. It doesn't convert from simple Iowan communities to the entire US. I also grew up rural, and I found there was as much shitty behavior, gossip-mongering, and corruption in a community of 300 as there is in the community of 300,000 where I live now.

[heavycola]

How should this be accomplished? A variety of means could be employed. Safety nets, wage laws, are all methods to ensure that the standard of living never goes below the minimum level for proper wellness. Unfortunately this and of itself doesn't really address the need for the other aspects of what we commonly call healthcare.

So we're back to square one...

curmudgeon:

nice arguments, and I see your point from a taxpayers' point of view. But isn't universal healthcare provision a worthy enough aim in and of itself to be paid for by taxes?

[jay_a2j]

Oh, universal health care is coming..... its called "a bullet to the brain".

[Juan_Bottom]

We already have greed, neglect, ignorance, and government bureuacracy in healthcare. What's the difference there?

I don't see what your saying about numbers either. If everyone is paying to a single place, shouldn't that lower costs? Especially since the government wouldn't be trying to make a profit, like the private healthcare providers do?

[Curmudgeonx]

But isn't universal healthcare provision a worthy enough aim in and of itself to be paid for by taxes?

Worthy?

. . .

Define worthy . . .

UHC paid by taxes (you left out: MY taxes). My gut instinct is that no, UHC is not "worthy", especially in the feared implementation where the middle class would be crushed by the tax burden and the services provided, while perhaps more equitable to the near-poor, would make more of the the middle class "near-poor".

Is it not worthy to allow me to prosper based upon my hard work and natural abilities? I went to an agricultural vocational high school in b.f.e. Indiana, but I persisted, borrowed, scraped by, worked every summer since I was 12 years old to go to college (in the days before gratuitous financial aid). I made some stupid decisions, double majoring to two subjects that couldn't be less useful to the job market if I tried, and then realized that I would need to borrow, scrape, work etc. to go onto post-grad work to get a job. More stupid decisions, requiring a Sisyphus-esque determination to get where I am now.

No offense, but no, I don't think others are more worthy of my efforts than myself.

[tzor]

I don't like this argument one bit, TZOR. By saying 'standard of healthcare,' you are creating a double standard. Because here in America, not everyone gets treated the same by health care providers. By which I mean, someone with a history of cancer cannot get any medical insurance at all.

But this is a different argument. I'm just concentrating on what the article stated. Applying it to the specific case of the United States requires a couple of cups of tea first to calm my nerves. (Definitely not coffee, the flight or fight response from the strong caffene could make me run away at the implications.)

From the early days of strong unions in the 20th century days of the United States, a variety of welfare programs were done at the corporate level. This was generally done because doing it at the national governmental level was communist socialist stuff and something one should not mention in either public or on television. So the corporations were stupid enough to take on this burden and as a result many American companies are themselves lying in the equivalent of a corporate hospital on life support because of the growing tumors of retiree healthcare coverage.

Moreover the model assumed the work at the same job until you retire model which is no longer true today. Yes some people work at the same job for decades ... they are the rare ones.

Aside from economies of scale (the only way large companies can stay afloat on insurance premiums) health care in the United States is mind numbingly expensive. The implication of the notion that you should have a standard of living so that you can afford this health care almsot demands that in the United States the minimum standard of living should be upper middle class.

I am currently a consultant but as an employee of the company so I get the benefits of economies of scale while at the same time seeing all the costs up front (before taxes) taken out of my paycheck. Just looking at a single person like myself, in my mid 40's I would need at least $4 per hour just to pay for my health insurance. If you consider married people with children, the cost for proper health insurance becomes a significant multiple of the minimum wage.

Then again, I'm also paying for a number of things in my health insurance payments. I have a vision plan and a dental plan (is 20/20 eyesight really a necessity ... are perfect teeth a necessity) and both of them are probably not what is covered in the above statement. That might be a nit pick, because I certanly think that every American should have good vision and relatively healthy teeth.

Thus we have several problems. In the first case, and indeed this is really the problem in a nutshell, we need to make healthcare affordable (because whether we pay for it directly, companies pay for it, or the government pays for it in the end it's everyone who pays for it), efficient and functionally sufficient. Then we have to make sure that everyone has a standard of living that allows them to be able to afford it. Last but not least we need to have a real "insurance" system and not the sham "insurance" systems we see in so many areas of the market. (A good example is flood insurance, where they will sell it to anyone who they think isn't going to get flodded in the first place, and if a flood happens you won't have access to it for at least a century. And even then they will probably weasel out any existing claims through clever application of a loophole.)

(By the way if you want a really bizzare case of insurance insanity consider my grandfather who got some health insurance in the mid 20th century with his small business. The company dropped him not because he was a risk but because he didn't make enough claims. Odd that.)

Personally I would like insurance to be "personal" instead of corporate. You get to choose who to get the plan from and the level of the plan. You keep it for life across multiple jobs. As in the case of life insurance, costs would be based on solid acturarial numbers of general costs and expenses. Ideally this system could even start at birth with the parents paying for the multiple individual plans (but with multiple account discounts like some auto insurance companies have) until the children get to be of adult age where they can then assume responsibility for the plan.

Who should provide these plans? I think we may need to have a combination of public and private as well as non profit organizations in the system.

[Juan_Bottom]

Fair enough, no rebuttle from me.

[MeDeFe]

Fair enough, no rebuttle from me.

*rebuttal
The verb is "to rebut"


And for the tax burden I have only four words: flat tax, no deductions

You can eliminate up to 90% of the bureaucracy involved with taxing people and make sure that everyone pays the same percentage of their earnings. Sounds like an idea? The conservative and liberal parties here were half campaigning with it a few years back, but Chancellor Schröder managed to sink it. Bastard.

[heavycola]

But isn't universal healthcare provision a worthy enough aim in and of itself to be paid for by taxes?

Worthy?

. . .

Define worthy . . .

UHC paid by taxes (you left out: MY taxes). My gut instinct is that no, UHC is not "worthy", especially in the feared implementation where the middle class would be crushed by the tax burden and the services provided, while perhaps more equitable to the near-poor, would make more of the the middle class "near-poor".

Is it not worthy to allow me to prosper based upon my hard work and natural abilities? I went to an agricultural vocational high school in b.f.e. Indiana, but I persisted, borrowed, scraped by, worked every summer since I was 12 years old to go to college (in the days before gratuitous financial aid). I made some stupid decisions, double majoring to two subjects that couldn't be less useful to the job market if I tried, and then realized that I would need to borrow, scrape, work etc. to go onto post-grad work to get a job. More stupid decisions, requiring a Sisyphus-esque determination to get where I am now.

No offense, but no, I don't think others are more worthy of my efforts than myself.

A crushed middle class? What about ringfenced sales taxes - booze, tobacco and junk food, for example, all things that are likely to land you in hospital (there is a debate in the UK abotu whether heavy smokers should receive free treatment for smoking-related diseases)- rather than a great chunk of income tax?
And you assume that universal healthcare must be of a poor standard. That's not my experience in the UK at all. I have only ever been stunned by the levels of care I and my loved ones have received here (and in a good way ). I don't know how much tax per capita it would cost in the US, but it would be interesting to compare the NHS tax burden in the UK to the average cost of health insurance in the US - assuming a similar standard of care, that is.

Is it not worthy to allow me to prosper based upon my hard work and natural abilities?

No, of course not. Hell, plenty of us work our arses off every week. But this isn't about giving poor people TVs, or a car each. I get the impression from some posters in this thread that anyone who can't afford to pay for health insurance doesn't deserve it, but that is clearly not the case. pre-exisiting condition? No insurance for you. Too sick? Premium hikes.

But then maybe this is like the gun thing. Most british people cannot understand US attitudes to handguns. They certainly baffle the shit out of me. Likewise, the NHS is a point of pride for the UK. When Gordon Brown, as chancellor, a few years ago announced a gradual 43% increase in the NHS budget - around £105bn last year, to be funded from general taxation - it was met with cheers, mostly, not calls for his head.
Different attitudes i guess.

[tzor]

And for the tax burden I have only four words: flat tax, no deductions

I do admit I do find the notion of the "flat tax" appealing. But over the years I find this argument wanting. Why "tax" everything? So I have come to a slight modification of the flat tax, the flat tax with offset. Let's take some acceptable value, for example a nice multiple of the poverty line. The offset flat tax would be your income minus the nice multiple of the poverty line. Now, as an option, if you are below the nice multiple you actually get money from the government. (That requires you to balance the numbers just right.) This would put welfare and taxation on the same sliding scale.

As for deductions, they should be "minimal" not none. Deferrals should be allowed. (Long term retirement savings, tax deferred until withdrawn.) I think charity should remain a deduction; every dollar one gives to charity is a dollar (or more) that the goverment doesn't have to spend on the poor.

[Curmudgeonx]

HC, I was not saying that the services would be poor, I was saying that if you tax the middle class into near poor status to provide the near poor UHC, then that isn't equitable.

I don't know how much tax per capita it would cost in the US,

This is the biggest problem. No one, after pleading throughout this thread, can tell me the cost. Maybe money can be found from the Iraqi war effort, maybe Social Security will be scrapped. But given the bloat that benefit programs have enjoyed (SS/Medicaid/Medicare), UHC will continue to be a hog at the trough. I believe that bad Government's sole purpose is to perpetuate itself. The best way to extend one's existence is to weave itself into every bit of business, then (not to sound like jay), but it could be a slippery slope to either collectivism or fascism.

It is regrettable that people are doing without. Even Jesus said we would always have the poor. But until someone can give me a scintilla of evidence that the tax burden would not fall squarely on middle-class shoulders (annual incomes from $50K-$150K), then do not count on my support.

[MeDeFe]

And for the tax burden I have only four words: flat tax, no deductions

I do admit I do find the notion of the "flat tax" appealing. But over the years I find this argument wanting. Why "tax" everything? So I have come to a slight modification of the flat tax, the flat tax with offset. Let's take some acceptable value, for example a nice multiple of the poverty line. The offset flat tax would be your income minus the nice multiple of the poverty line. Now, as an option, if you are below the nice multiple you actually get money from the government. (That requires you to balance the numbers just right.) This would put welfare and taxation on the same sliding scale.

As for deductions, they should be "minimal" not none. Deferrals should be allowed. (Long term retirement savings, tax deferred until withdrawn.) I think charity should remain a deduction; every dollar one gives to charity is a dollar (or more) that the goverment doesn't have to spend on the poor.

On the other hand, every time something becomes deductible the bureaucracy necessarily grows, increasing the costs for the state.

[tzor]

On the other hand, every time something becomes deductible the bureaucracy necessarily grows, increasing the costs for the state.

Which is why you have to weigh them very carefully, looking at all the costs and benefits. Sometimes the numbers actually work out. Most of the time they do not. For the sake of the babies we can't throw them out with the bathwater. We have to identify the babies before we empty the tub.

[Nobunaga]

... George Will sums it up very nicely here.

... Creation of dependence is the goal, especially when you consider that 32 million of the 47 million uninsured are so only by the result using other options.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 97094.html

[PopeBenXVI]

Medicare - Broke
Medicaid - Broke
Social Security - Going broke
Post Office - looses money basically every year
Government itself - In debt every year because they can't control spending like a normal American family is required to do and families can't just give themselves a raise each year if they need more money.

YES - Why not give government more of our money to mismanage......are you joking? Everyone who is always complaining about how expensive healthcare is never asks themselves why it is that they actually can't afford it. If people objected to the ridiculous amount of taxes they pay in all walks of life they could afford their healthcare in most cases. Private healthcare is also more expensive because they pay more to cover for the government programs that pay dirt for services to providers. It is like any business who takes a job they would loose money on. They have to raise prices on everyone else. If all healthcare is run by the government you will have no say or ability to go to another program if you don't like theirs. Willing to gamble that they do it right? They don't have a good track record so far in the healthcare they do provide.

Free market competition is the best way to keep down prices and to keep customers happy with good service. I don't want my clinic visits to be like the DMV. When businesses compete then the customer is better off. Government run care is the same as if only one company offered healthcare. You would have no choices and they would just take your money with no way out. Most people from other countries with government healthcare say it sucks because you wait for services that are routine here. In some counties the government also dictates who gets what services. Elderly and other "non productive" members of society are not given treatment they could get here. You may not be one of those people now but you will be

Wake up!! It's about control and more money in the government revenue stream not about helping people.

[PLAYER57832]

Medicare - Broke
Medicaid - Broke

True, because drug companies and insurance companies run the health care system, not doctors or the government.

Social Security - Going broke

Only because Reagan used the Social Security "surplus" that was to be held to pay for Baby Boomer's retirement to balance the budget instead.

Post Office - looses money basically every year

True, but its not supposed to make a profit.

Government itself - In debt every year because they can't control spending like a normal American family is required to do and families can't just give themselves a raise each year if they need more money.

No, most american families now live off of credit cards, which is a big part of why our economy is collapsing.

YES - Why not give government more of our money to mismanage......are you joking? Everyone who is always complaining about how expensive healthcare is never asks themselves why it is that they actually can't afford it.

WRONG..

I

f people objected to the ridiculous amount of taxes they pay in all walks of life they could afford their healthcare in most cases.

WRONG..
taxes we pay for roads, etc have nothing to do with high health care costs. Reliance on emergency care instead of preventative care, becuase emergency care has to be treated and doctors can refuse all other care.. THAT is one big reason.

Another is the US government GIVING pharmaceutical companies patents developed by NIH, because that is what the law requires, with NO charge, NO royalties in exchange for our tax dollars -- that is another.

Lawsuits driven by people who have no other hope of getting the care they need, and a malpractice system that is all about insurance and not about doctors OR patients... is another.

A really big cost is the cost of administration, simply filling out paperwork for several insurance plans. (Blue Cross has 80%, but that means 10-15 differenty TYPES of plans, minimum)

Private healthcare is also more expensive because they pay more to cover for the government programs that pay dirt for services to providers. It is like any business who takes a job they would loose money on. They have to raise prices on everyone else. If all healthcare is run by the government you will have no say or ability to go to another program if you don't like theirs. Willing to gamble that they do it right? They don't have a good track record so far in the healthcare they do provide.

Wrong again. The insurance companies don't pay for indigent people, WE do. Insurance companies contract for LOWER payments and further stack the decks by having lifetime limits. Anyone without insurance may have to pay as much as 10 TIMES the fees insurance companies pay for the exact same services to the exact same hospital. Furthermore.

Free market competition is the best way to keep down prices and to keep customers happy with good service.

For a free market to work, you need 2 things -- access/ ready ability to switch AND Knowledge of the product -- you have to know enough to be able to choose one over another .

In medicine, you have neither. When you get in a car crash, you go to the nearest hospital. Many communities don't even HAVE options for hospitals. If they do, who goes where is usually dependent on location and the type of issue. (child, burn unit, etc.). NOwhere in that is there any free choice as is necessary for a market system.

There IS a market system for voluntary and optional services, but even then, most people don't really know enough about doctors to choose, even if they HAVE a choice. Right now, insurance companies decide where most people go. People' don't choose their insurance, employers do. Employers look at their bottom line, which has little to do with the kind of service patients are recieving.

I don't want my clinic visits to be like the DMV.

By which you mean, what?

When businesses compete then the customer is better off. Government run care is the same as if only one company offered healthcare. You would have no choices and they would just take your money with no way out. Most people from other countries with government healthcare say it sucks because you wait for services that are routine here. In some counties the government also dictates who gets what services. Elderly and other "non productive" members of society are not given treatment they could get here. You may not be one of those people now but you will be

WRONG. People in other countries pay less and are generally far HAPPIER than those in the US.

If you want the absolut best surgeon to do surgery on your brain or to fix some extreme abnormality in your child, then the US is the place to be, BUT ONLY if you can manage to find the money to pay. And, while everyone rallies around that child... 10,000,000 other people are avoiding regular checkups, cutting pills in half or simply skipping medications, not going to the dentist or eye doctors, etc. And that is people WITH insurance. Those without buld up those numbers highly.

Wake up!! It's about control and more money in the government revenue stream not about helping people.

You took the words out of my mouth. Insurance companies and Pharmaceutical companies want control and money .. not to help us. THEY don't have to truly respond to us.. the government DOES.

[PopeBenXVI]

Medicare - Broke
Medicaid - Broke

True, because drug companies and insurance companies run the health care system, not doctors or the government.

Social Security - Going broke

Only because Reagan used the Social Security "surplus" that was to be held to pay for Baby Boomer's retirement to balance the budget instead.

Post Office - looses money basically every year

True, but its not supposed to make a profit.

Government itself - In debt every year because they can't control spending like a normal American family is required to do and families can't just give themselves a raise each year if they need more money.

No, most american families now live off of credit cards, which is a big part of why our economy is collapsing.

YES - Why not give government more of our money to mismanage......are you joking? Everyone who is always complaining about how expensive healthcare is never asks themselves why it is that they actually can't afford it.

WRONG..

I

f people objected to the ridiculous amount of taxes they pay in all walks of life they could afford their healthcare in most cases.

WRONG..
taxes we pay for roads, etc have nothing to do with high health care costs. Reliance on emergency care instead of preventative care, becuase emergency care has to be treated and doctors can refuse all other care.. THAT is one big reason.

Another is the US government GIVING pharmaceutical companies patents developed by NIH, because that is what the law requires, with NO charge, NO royalties in exchange for our tax dollars -- that is another.

Lawsuits driven by people who have no other hope of getting the care they need, and a malpractice system that is all about insurance and not about doctors OR patients... is another.

A really big cost is the cost of administration, simply filling out paperwork for several insurance plans. (Blue Cross has 80%, but that means 10-15 differenty TYPES of plans, minimum)

Private healthcare is also more expensive because they pay more to cover for the government programs that pay dirt for services to providers. It is like any business who takes a job they would loose money on. They have to raise prices on everyone else. If all healthcare is run by the government you will have no say or ability to go to another program if you don't like theirs. Willing to gamble that they do it right? They don't have a good track record so far in the healthcare they do provide.

Wrong again. The insurance companies don't pay for indigent people, WE do. Insurance companies contract for LOWER payments and further stack the decks by having lifetime limits. Anyone without insurance may have to pay as much as 10 TIMES the fees insurance companies pay for the exact same services to the exact same hospital. Furthermore.

Free market competition is the best way to keep down prices and to keep customers happy with good service.

For a free market to work, you need 2 things -- access/ ready ability to switch AND Knowledge of the product -- you have to know enough to be able to choose one over another .

In medicine, you have neither. When you get in a car crash, you go to the nearest hospital. Many communities don't even HAVE options for hospitals. If they do, who goes where is usually dependent on location and the type of issue. (child, burn unit, etc.). NOwhere in that is there any free choice as is necessary for a market system.

There IS a market system for voluntary and optional services, but even then, most people don't really know enough about doctors to choose, even if they HAVE a choice. Right now, insurance companies decide where most people go. People' don't choose their insurance, employers do. Employers look at their bottom line, which has little to do with the kind of service patients are recieving.

I don't want my clinic visits to be like the DMV.

By which you mean, what?

When businesses compete then the customer is better off. Government run care is the same as if only one company offered healthcare. You would have no choices and they would just take your money with no way out. Most people from other countries with government healthcare say it sucks because you wait for services that are routine here. In some counties the government also dictates who gets what services. Elderly and other "non productive" members of society are not given treatment they could get here. You may not be one of those people now but you will be

WRONG. People in other countries pay less and are generally far HAPPIER than those in the US.

If you want the absolut best surgeon to do surgery on your brain or to fix some extreme abnormality in your child, then the US is the place to be, BUT ONLY if you can manage to find the money to pay. And, while everyone rallies around that child... 10,000,000 other people are avoiding regular checkups, cutting pills in half or simply skipping medications, not going to the dentist or eye doctors, etc. And that is people WITH insurance. Those without buld up those numbers highly.

Wake up!! It's about control and more money in the government revenue stream not about helping people.

You took the words out of my mouth. Insurance companies and Pharmaceutical companies want control and money .. not to help us. THEY don't have to truly respond to us.. the government DOES.

Aside from being repeatedly inaccurate you completely missed my point. The government does not run basically ANYTHING efficiently. Private business has to or they do not exist. Government just sucks more money from you and they are still in the red every time. They show no track record for being able to pull this off unless I'm missing something you know of?

[jonka]

Medicare - Broke
Medicaid - Broke
Social Security - Going broke
Post Office - looses money basically every year
Government itself - In debt every year because they can't control spending like a normal American family is required to do and families can't just give themselves a raise each year if they need more money.

We had a surplus until Bush. We can just raise the retirement age a couple years, to help out social security. The post office could only deliver every other day or so, and cut down on drivers, while investing in machines to increase productivity but decrease costs. If we didn't go to war, and didn't lower taxes, our government wouldn't be in this mess.