If Universal Health Care would be so bad that nobody would want it, why can't we just have a Federal

[1932]

Program and let people make a choice -- either stay in your expensive, crappy, service-denying private plan or pick the Universal Health Care program?

Am I missing something?

If the private insurers and hospitals are so confident that a federal program would be terrible, then why would they be afraid of having an opt-in program? If they're being honest, then shouldn't they be confident that nobody would choose to use it?

Obviously, they're worried only about their profits (and that people would be happier with a Universal Health Care).

[Maestro]

1. There would always be those that complain

that their taxes are being used to fund health care even though they choose to stay with their private plan. That would be my first guess.

[1932]

4. but if they think nobody is going to chose to use it, it's not going to cost very much

[Maestro]

15. The reich-wingers I know would just say

"Hey, I don't care if I'm paying the pennies on the dollar. It's the principle." Blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda. We just need universal care and take out for profit health altogether. But I agree, it seems that a compromise would be choice.

[1932]

19. Not even just to try it and prove it was bad and shut liberals up forever?

[Maestro]

25. Oh sure, try it.

It wouldn't bother me because I am signing up. I'm just trying to be the Devil's Advocate. I am a godless heathen liberal, ya know? :)

[Sadie4629]

18. People would certainly choose it

And the right-wingers think it would be the lazy, the drug addicted the "welfare queens," etc. They don't want to do anything to support "them."

[1932]

20. It would be better and cheaper and that's why the private corps don't want it

[sojourner]

54. the Corporatocracy that is enriches itself through

the suffering and death of citizens will NEVER allow such a thing. In fact, they are responsible for the lie that nobody would be happy with Universal Health Care, and that it would cost "too much", etc.

[goclark]

8. I don't think they would complain long

Pretty soon they will realize that Universal Care, or any thing like it, is the only way to go.

I have Blue Cross/BS and Medicare and I would love to have universal health care.

I was in Tanzania in 1975.
My tooth was hurting so much that the hotel found the only dentist in the little town that worked on Saturday.

My dentist in the States had not fixed it properly.

The office was extremely tiny but clean. It only had the basics.

The Dr.worked on my tooth for about 20 minutes and gave me pills to take until I got back to the States.

I was worried that I would not have enough money in traveler's checks to pay him.

When I asked him how much it would be, he said proudly ~ "You don't have to pay me anything. We have Socialized Medicine here."

My tooth was great and I enjoyed the rest of my trip in complete comfort.

I always remember that experience and wonder why we don't do it here.

Bless MM for waking us up to SICKO!

[Maestro]

14. I hope not.

I'm all for Universal Health Care. Besides the general well-being and security of its people, a government should provide health care and education for all.

[Clark2008]

50. Like people who don't have kids complain about their tax dollars

going to fund schools?

I actually hear those complaints. Never mind that a better educated society is good for all of us. Never mind that some of these complainers are business owners who'll need an educated work force.

Some people never understand the "we" over the "me" theory of life.

[Maestro]

55. Exactly.

We all need to "pitch in" for the betterment of the whole society. Americans in general are very selfish people. Neo cons take that selfishness to the nth degree.

[Telly Savalas]

57. That argument drives me crazy.

Anybody who worked part-time in the evenings to pay for their education while they were in the second grade deserves an exemption from paying taxes to fund current second graders, but everybody else should shut the fuck up and pay their share.

[Lasher]

2. Right wing stink tanks have done a bang up job

Funded with billions from the richest 1%, they have managed to convince many that single payer universal health care is bad and massive tax cuts for the rich are good. If it were in the interests of the wealthy elite for people to believe the earth is flat, you would see hordes of stink tank propagandists on the Sunday talk shows, arguing exactly that point with straight faces. And about 26% of the country would believe them.

[smoogatz]

53. What's odd about this situation from a RW point of view

is that our current healthcare "system" is actually a huge tax on businesses. you'd think they'd be stampeding congress, demanding nationalized health insurance or SOME kind of relief from the enormous cost of insuring their employees, not to mention an entire generation of retired workers, many of whom receive healthcare as part of their retirement package. Hell, GM is drowning in healthcare costs--but do they go to the government asking for relief? Would the government listen if major employers from businesses across the board demanded universal healthcare? I'm not sure--they (the govt) seem to be totally in thrall to the insurance industry. It's a most curious development.

[Rosemary2205]

59. GM "is" and has been talking about government involvement in healthcare.

So has Ford -- I know for a fact Ford has been lobbying congress for relief on providing healthcare benefits for at least 20 years to keep them competative with Honda and Toyota.

No one listened.

[smoogatz]

60. That's interesting.

So much for "what's good for GM is good for America," I guess.

[Lasher]

62. As a matter of fact, Republicans want to end employer paid health care.

But they are not asking for anything like single payer universal health care as a replacement for what employees and retirees would lose. You are giving corporations too much credit for actually caring what happens to people who are now covered by employer-sponsored health care. The don't care at all. Corporations have been after Junior for years to do something to get them off the hook. He's tried.

Junior's idea of improving things is to give currently uninsured employees a tax break to purchase catastrophic-only, high deductible health insurance. But for any employer-paid health care coverage that is more than a bare bones arrangement like I just described, he wants to tax those benefits as income. Get it? This is intended to force employees to drop their good coverage and go with the bare bones catastrophic-only coverage that Junior and big business want them to have.

Sometimes people can do a real good job of putting lipstick on a pig. One way to recognize this swine is that Health Savings Accounts are being promoted as a way to encourage employees to pay for their own insurance. This can look like employers are paying at least a portion of the cost, but they might just be acting as mediators between insurers and employees to set up group coverage, without actually contributing a dime to defer employees' costs. This is the direction in which they will continue to try to push us all - to pay health care insurance ourselves without any financial help from employers.

Here's an OP that I saved from a while back. Salin was quite accurate in predicting what Junior and his corporate owners would try to do:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=210673

[goclark]

3. I agree ~ Sicko has the ability to change America

It should be required viewing for all citizens.

I was speaking to my doctor yesterday.
Two pharmacy Reps were waiting outside the examining room door to pounce on him.

His Secretary had to almost fight off another one who insisted on seeing the doctor(5 patients were waiting)so that he could leave his latest literature about his pills.

Our doctor was really depressed because the hospitals that he uses are in " big trouble."

Since they are in business to make a profit and so many of the County hospitals are closing, there are not enough beds for the patients that regularly use his hospitals. They are bursting at the seams.

I asked him had he seen SICKO and his answer was "No," he hadn't had time.

After I explained things to him from the film ~ he looked at me and said, "Maybe Universal Health Care is the only answer left."

PLEASE do this everyone ~ every doctor that you talk to,take time to explain SICKO. I bet you they have not seen it yet. I bet you that the Pull Pushers and $$ Takers of the Health Industry have talked B A D about the film.

Let's be Drum Major for Quality Health Care!

[bvar22]

28. If you support Single Payer,

why do you have as your avatar someone who doesn't?

[goclark]

48. There are so many things that I love about Obama

and I do believe that he is not mean spirited and will listen.

I don't know of any candidate who supports everything that I support.

[Clark2008]

51. The person in your user name and sig line does.

We have to convince him to run.

[defendandprotect]

63. Obama doesn't support National Health Care--------????!!!!!

[PSPS]

5. It violates the "pooled risk" model

If you have two programs, only one of which takes everyone (the federal plan,) that leaves the private plan free to continue to exclude those who may ever make a claim and to try to deny coverage to its policyholders. This leaves the private plan flush with the cash the federal plan needs to cover its members.

The way health insurance is supposed to work (and used to thirty years ago) is that everyone (the healthy, the sick, those likely to make claims and those not likely to make claims) pay into the plan, and the funds are sufficient to cover the expenses of all claims. That's the definition of "pooled risk."

With a public/private combination, the private plan would only accept those least likely to ever make a claim, unfairly increasing the financial burden on the public plan. In other words, it would be yet another corporate welfare giveaway to private insurance companies' CEO's and their billion-dollar salaries.

[1932]

6. I don't think the uninsured are necessarily less healthy. They're just unemployed.

They're probably about as healthy as insured people.

And I don't think employers are allowed to deny coverage to employees. If you're sick or have a pre-existing condition, your employer can't deny you coverage.

[SharonAnn]

12. Many with pre-existing conditions cannot get affordable health insurance.

They may not be able to get any at all.

For example, if you have diabetes, have had a kidney problem in the past, have had a back or knee problem in the past, are over 50, have allergies or asthma, have blood pressure that's borderline high, have higher than "low" cholesterol, etc. you may not be able to get health insurance at all. If you can, it might be $800 - $2,00 a month and would only cover catastrophic expenses and would exclude your pre-existing condition(s) completely.

Many uninsured people are that way because their insurance cost would be extremely high because of the above.

I have a friend who's 59 and diabetic. He hasn't been able to get any kind of health insurance, no matter the cost. Another friend with a serious spinal condition is enduring extreme pain and disability waiting the two more years until she qualifies for Medicare.

I believe the risk profile might be different from the risk profile of "average" insured people.

[1932]

33. I think that's self-insurance.

I believe there's a federal law preventing employers from doing that.

[SoCalDem]

45. You cannot have people floating in and out of a program depending on their employment status

It creates too much chaos.. EVERYONE needs to be under the same umbrella.. Once people start peeling off, the cost goes up..

That's what's wrong NOW.. As unions failed, the groups got smaller and smaller, and of course age is a factor. Young people who are NOT likely to use much medical coverage are paying for other who do..now..but they are "banking" their later-in-life coverage..... when others younger that themselves will be using less and covering them..

It's a generational promise..

[killbotfactory]

56. You know some employers don't even offer benefits e/t

[Nite Owl]

23. That's likely what would happen

the insurance companies would take the healthiest and the public program would get the people who need the treatment the most and cost the most. The idea of the pooled risk is to even it all out. This would be a boon for insurance companies, it is what they want. I suppose they could be regulated so that no one could be refused coverage and the cost of the policy must be the same in a specific area but they always find ways to get around it, they make sure that the law that is passed has a loophole large enough to drive a mack truck through.

[Telly Savalas]

58. What you're describing is the way thing work now.

The only difference is that under the OP's plan the uninsurable would have a proper safety net to fall back on. Right now, they're just fucked.

[sandnsea]

43. Pre-existing funds

States already have programs set up for people with pre-existing. People could be convinced to fund all catastrophic cases separately, if it meant cheaper monthly premiums.

[haele]

70. However, if you're currently employed or make over a certain income -

you aren't eligible. We could save $800 a month on co-pays and prescriptions if we could get the kidlet on CA's "Well Child" and if my completely disabled spouse could get on full Medicare, but I'm employed and make over $40K a year at a job that has some benefits so we pass the upper limit for both programs.
In 12 years, as a retired reservist, I'll be eligible for TriCare for Life, the military's version of Universal Healthcare, which if I had now would mean we would only average a little over $200 a month out of pocket for premiums and co-pays/prescriptions for the same service we now average close to $1K a month with employer provided health benefits on good months (two doctor's appointments a month instead of four or five including urgent care visits).

If I were to lose my job or switch jobs/start over in a place that doesn't have portability with health care, it would be far worse. Just the basic premiums alone if we could get health care would be around $1K a month. Add the co-pays, deductibles, and prescriptions and there's no way in hell we could afford anything. So while I'll be working myself to death trying to keep the family afloat or try and go back to active duty for another 6 years until TriCare kicks in (if it's still available), my spouse will end up with a shorter, more miserable life, and the kidlet, who has emotional issues as well as some chemical imbalances beyond puberty, will end up a disposable person as she grows up.

The working/middle class still get screwed with anything other than Single Payer Universal.

Y'know, it's as if a shadowy "they" - the self centered Chicago School of Business Corporatist types - are practicing population control to weed out any intelligence from working people to create a New World Order disposable "drone class". Drones are certainly more easy to control, and make great pets as long as they're useful.

Haele

[sandnsea]

71. Yes that's right at the cut-off

You would definitely be better of with a 6-7% tax rate, provided it covered your entire family and wasn't 6% for each person. That's the figure Oregon tried to pass a few years ago when a single payer alternative was on the ballot. Oregon's upper limit for a family of 4 is $3184, which would provide 50% premiumd assistance (if the program were fully funded). Still, I think we are going to have to go that route before people become willing to go the next step to single payer. I just don't think we're going to get there all at once.

[supernova]

7. Actually I think that's

mostly how it will happen here.


Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a bill, similar to the Social Security Act, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 620 at 15:40 on (14 August 1935), now codified as 42 U.S.C. ch.7, that institutes health care for everyone. I'd be pleaseantly shocked if it happened that way.

But I think it's going to have start out life as some sort of "pilot" program that people will sign up for. If it's what we want, more and more people will sign on, the program will succeed, get better and better funding, and insurance companies as we now know them will go the way of the dodo.

[eridani]

40. Not hardly--they are guaranteed to fail if they cover actual sick people--

--while the private insurers are allowed to exclude them.

[CTyankee]

42. The problem could be the actual funding. Here's a scenario:

We get a Dem for prez and a healthy majority in both houses of Congress. The Universal plan is well funded and people sign up. Butwhat if subsequently, in 2012 or 2016, a RW repub is elected prez and one or both house of Congress turn over. Funding then gets cut for the Universal coverage plan so that the RW can "prove" that the Universal plan can't work. I believe the Thatcher administration did something like that in Great Britain.

The French plan provides France with the best government funded health care in the world, according to W.H.O. I don't know much about it but, from what I have read, it combines some features of private funding along with the public funding.

We've seen the repubs go after extremely popular government plans such as Social Security and Medicare. They were beating a dead horse but Dems were distracted from other things to defend a hugely successful and venerable program like SSI. A new government program might still have wobbly legs by the time another RWinger gets to the White HOuse and it could find the ground cut off beneath it!

[JacquesMolay]

9. I'd go better than that ...

...let people deduct their health-insurance payments from their tax bill (not just taxable income). It would destroy the federal government, but what good is the government if it can't provide access to health care? People would get the choice - do you want to pay for Bush's war or for health insurance?

[1932]

11. I'm not interested in destroying the government or in having taxpayers subsidize

the profits of private health care providers, which is what you do when you make payments to private companies tax deductible.

[supernova]

13. Definitely don't support

insurance premiums as a tax deduction if you're going to have universal care. We take it out of our paychecks like we do FICA. Everybody. Period. No exceptions.

[alfredo]

10. I'm in the program for federal employees. You still have to

deal with the blood sucking HMO's and PPO's. I still get yearly premium raises and higher copays and deductibles. You have to sign on for a year, and they always raise the rates right after the sign up season.

[Sadie4629]

16. Could those who would opt out of the Federal program

also opt out of the taxes that would pay for it? If so, the federal program wouldn't last a month. If they couldn't, they would be soaked twice--once by their insurer and once by the taxman.

[1932]

21. Yeah. Just like you can opt out of local taxes that support schools even if you don't have kids.

Oh, you can't do that?

Because everyone benefits from reproducing generations of educated people, even if you don't have a child presently in school?

Oh.

[eridani]

41. What would happen if you had the chance to opt out of the property taxes--

--that pay for your fire department on the grounds that you will probably never have a fire?

[autorank]

17. Interesting facts. National health might be same or less cost.

1) Drugs are 50% of the health dollar spent.

2) Profits are about 20% of the care delivery process.

3) Take the VA model or any nation, where 40-60% discounts are achieved on drug prices,
you reduce health costs by 20-30% (1/2 of 1/2). THAT'S HUGE

3) Take profits out of the care process (the other half), that's 20% of 1/2 or another 10% reduction.

4) Now you're looking at 35% total reduction due to drug company discounts (like they do everywhere but here) and another 10% due to getting rid of profits (fed programs require little administrative cost, e.g., Medicare)now you have a 35% reduction for what we have now.

5) Ad in 47 million uninsured.

6) It may be a dollar for dollar switch. That's amazing.

Screw the federal opt in program. It preserves too much. We need discounts on drugs, which are there, and profits need to leave the health care industry.

Big win all the way around. Don't let the insurance companies survive. They must go. Pound big pharma, really hard.

It's all over, we win.

[many a good man]

24. You're way off on #1

I've heard prescription drugs are less than 10% of total health care costs. Can you show a link? Drug prices have been skyrocketing, but they are still a small pctg of the total. Of course, as an individual if you're poor and dependent on them it would be a killer.

#2 may be inaccurate as well (due to the accounting methods used to calculate profits). I think the more important fact here is that private health insurers incur up to 30% overhead whereas Medicare and VA is only 1-3%. That difference alone is enough to cover all the uninsured.

Single payer is the only thing that will keep health care costs down. As the single buyer the govt would have a lot of leverage to negotiate better prices with the providers.

It's my feeling that health insurers KNOW that single payer is right around the corner so they are milking it for all they can while they still have it. Why else would premiums be rising at between 2-7 times the rate of inflation?

[papau]

30. There is a total cost drop from 16^ of GDP to 11 or 12% depending on benefits

covered.

But your analysis of the drop is a little off. The 30% savings on individual insurance and 15 to 20% saving on Group insurance overhead is the main driver - the 2% savings from drug prices are a big deal only in the Medicare part D drug program where those 30%to 50% cuts are obviously a greater percentage of the program than 2% (the 2% being of all health costs in the US).

I should note that very large US companies get Group at around a 10% overhead to claims - and that can drop to 6% if the company takes the total risk as to the size of claims in any given year (so called administrative services only contracts - meaning what Medicare does for 1.7% of claims each year)

[many a good man]

39. Are you saying ...

That people currently in group plans can expect to save 15-20% on health insurance costs and those with individual plans would save 30% if we moved to a single payer system? What tax model is that using? IOW, how are the "premiums" in single payer calculated in that analysis? (I assume the "health care tax" in a single payer system would be a flat rate on income - so it would matter where you are on the income scale.)

You say overhead to claims in the private system for big health plans falls between 6-10%. What are the other significant sources of overhead? How much are they?

In your estimation, what tangible or intangible benefits does the private health insurance industry deliver that may be lost if we move to a single payer system? Anything?

(Note: sorry to pester you with questions, but your comments are always highly valued!)

[papau]

47. Those are the charges that the client sees and therefore ALL of the overhead

Currently just about all single payer systems keep 90 plus percent of the insurance company employees (other than agents) in their same jobs as they process claims for the national system.

Indeed The USA uses the same approach now - every few months there is a bidding by the insurance companies for the contract that pays Medicare Part B claims in a given state - Medicare claims in each state has a different contract holder bidding event. Each contract is for "administrative services only" - so they are competing with each other on a cost basis for processing claims - and nothing else.

In the US Medicare, after paying the insurance companies their expenses and overhead and profit - as defined in the contract - pays 1.75% of claims paid per the last Trustee's Report as expenses for the government salaries plus the expense of the insurance administration of claims contracts.

No insurance company can match those numbers because the insurance company wants to charge a "risk" fee for the risk that they insured the wrong person or group - meaning the person or group that has more claims than the average person or group. There is no need for such a risk charge in a single payer system - and the economy has capital released for more productive use than being surplus for an insurance company.

So the tax cost that replaces what is currently the premium for your coverage is likely to be 20% less than that premium. Of course in many companies the employer counts as your wage a subsidy he gives you so that you only pay $200 to $400 per month for the premium that actually costs him $1000 per month.

So here is where the GOP has a talking point - unless the employer increases your wage by the subsidy he is currently paying - rather than pocketing the savings for his bottom line - the 40% of the population that has subsidized health care will see out of pocket costs go up.

The solution is to either hit companies with a tax that replaces the 80% subsity by paying 80% of the cost - a tax of 8% of GDP on companies, with the worker paying the rest, or to shift that cost to the very highly paid by using the money from repeal of the tax cuts for the rich as the basis for the funding - in effect paying for national heal from the revenue generate by the Federal Income Tax system, and giving the worker a tax cut as the payroll Medicare tax of 1.65% is set to zero.

There are of course no "premiums" to calculate in a single payer system - but there is that problem in a universal system that uses insurance companies and government subsidies paid to the insurance companies for the folks that can not pay the mandated you must pay under the law premium to the insurance company.

A flat rate tax on wages would be the GOP choice - ala the current payroll tax, so that the cost did not hit the 90% of the income of the rich that is called investment income. Paying for the cost through the FIT system gets us a little progressiveness in the cost structure,

When I said overhead for claims in the private system for big health plans falls between 6-10%, I am referencing the 500,000 plus employee size administrative services only contracts like John Hancock had with Ford for many, many years. All insurance company overhead, profit, whatever, was in that percentage.

Since there would be insurance companies selling supplemental insurance policies after single payer - as there are now for Medicare - the innovation of the industry as to new coverages would continue. What would be lost would be a large percentage of current agents commissions income, CEO salaries, and all the other costs that are unecessary.

[defendandprotect]

64. For what we spend, we could have the most LUXURIOUS of health care systems . . .

on a par with that of Switzerland's!!!!

[Blue State Blues]

22. Private Insurers would be able to pick their patients

And choose only the healthy ones who don't need care. Leaving the government system with the cost of paying for everyone who is actually in need of care. Then the government plan would be expensive to operate, with greater likelihood of the rationing and waiting lists and other boogeymen the right trots out as objections to universal healthcare.

Insurance only works if you can spread the risk over a large enough group of insured.

[1932]

32. Patients would be able to picke their health care provider.

They could either chose UHC, or they could chose to be ripped off.

[smoogatz]

26. Or

I think what you do is sign everybody up for the basic plan, which covers illness, accident and routine preventive, and some "elective" surgeries like joint replacement and cosmetic surgery for people who've been disfigured in accidents or by illness or whatever. Then, if you want, you could pay more for "Cadillac" coverage that would include things like private rooms, etc.--or you could go to a private insurer for that stuff. How much you pay would be based on your income and the number of people in your family. Basically you're not nationalizing medicine, you're nationalizing health insurance: doctors would still be self-employed or employed by HMOs, or whatever, and your doctor can decide whether or not he wants to take only patients who use national insurance, or no patients who use national insurance (kind of a stupid move, since everyone will have it), or a mix of national and private insured patients. Many doctors might opt to see only national insured patients, because it would allow them to lay-off the full-time employee they're now forced to hire to wrangle with the inusrance companies--a cost savings of $30-$50k per year for a lot of private practices. Also, the government should provide low-cost malpractice insurance for doctors as an incentive.

[leeroysphitz]

27. There are those who think that the American people as a nation are

all in this together and should help each other out (progressives) and those who think that it's every man for his/ herself and that every dollar of wealth that somebody else has is a dollar that he/ she doesn't have (conservatives).

Even if it is shown to be beneficial to the nation as a whole the latter are going to complain and try to block any collectivized national health scheme no matter what. Period.

Regardless of the slick arguments the Norquists of the world may put forward it's just plain old selfishness and greed nothing more.

[supernova]

29. What makes you think no American would want it?

:shrug:

As Sicko points out, most Americans are completely unfamiliar with the concept universal health care, with the practical ways it is practiced in other countries.

[Gregorian]

31. We can't stop competition. There will be private medical institutions.

I am probably not even replying to your post as much as saying a few things I have experienced.

From just about every comment I've heard from Europeans regarding their health care, I get the sense that it's quite bad in quality. I mean malpractice and poor facilities. But that' s just sitting in on forum conversations and listening over the years.

Then there is the cost of medical supplies. MRI machines and cardiac catheters. This stuff is extremely expensive. And for a reason. And I suspect it's going to skyrocket in price as oil declines in cheap abundance.

Edit- Affordable medicine is a chain of events. It would mean cheaper MRI machines, cheaper doctors, etc. At least that seems to make sense to me. I don't see any way around that. Like everything, it's interrelated. So we need to focus on much more than just the politics and paperwork. It's a huge industry. If anyone wants my advice, I'd say we have everything we need already- Drop military spending and subsidize the medical industry instead. Done.

Also, I don't see Barbara Bush or Dick Cheney waiting in line for their exam. There will be physicians who start up their own private companies.


You get what you pay for. But the problem as I see it is we're paying and still not getting anything.

I personally have needed a physician for nearly 20 years. For multiple things. And yet I haven't gone. I'm not poor, but I'm not going to spend $50k on a mulitude of tests before discovering, or not discovering, what my problem is. So I've recently, decided to cancel my health insurance after a life of paying for something that buys me almost nothing.

It's just another outrageous fault of America that Americans aren't outraged about. But it's looking like it's about to change. Too many people are my age now. And we need help. Lots of help. Especially since we waited twenty years. Now we're chronic.

[CTyankee]

44. I don't know where you get your information that European health care

is not good. The World Health Organization rated France as having the best in the world! The Canadians have been polled with the question would they prefer the US system to theirs and the result was a resounding "NO!"

BTW, I haven't noticed the French or the Danes or the Swedes flocking to the USA because they can't stand their own country's health system. Nobody wants ours because it costs more and delivers less than univeral health care.

[Gregorian]

46. Great Britain

Much of the comments I've heard are about lousy conditions and poor practices.

But don't confuse what I'm saying with an argument. By all means we must end the worthless emptiness we have here.

I would like to add my own personal experience though. Having spent many years in the Veterans Admin hospital system, I saw a dramatic difference in care between that hospital and a private institution just several miles away. And I believe that is a good example of what to expect. But it doesn't have to be that way. I think that quality is proportional to how well employees are paid. And that was the only difference between these two hospitals, especially since they were both staffed by the same physicians.

I also want to add that totally unrelated to how well employees are paid, I believe education and pride play extremely important roles. And those come down to much bigger things. Population density, culture, political climate, military spending...

[CTyankee]

67. I'm surprised that recently people in GB have those complaints

Back in the Thatcher days we heard more about it. It was considered a funding issue as I recall. The conservative government underfunded the program and naturally it suffered as a result. Perhaps it is still being underfunded?

[Gregorian]

68. And that may very well be one of the disadvantages of this kind of system.

I find it impossible to believe that good health care would be something people would have to fight for. It's like we're battling zombies or something.

[CTyankee]

73. I make reference to Social Security earlier on this thread.

I really wonder if the neocons chose Social Security privatization as their battleground to see if they could end a popular and venerable social program that the American people love and depend on (same with Medicare). Fearing that socialized medicine would be next, perhaps? I think they know that once people start depending on a program they will "vote their pocketbooks" and punish their representatives in Congress if they don't keep funding on an even keel. So they tried flummoxing the American voter on SSI, with dismal results.

I guess the American people aren't so stupid after all.

[defendandprotect]

65. True -- there have been right-wing governments starving the European plans . . .

but still, there are not health problems on a par with what we are experiencing in America --

lower life expectancy and infant mortality --

go see SICKO --

and I do not ever see the discontents reported by our right-wing media when actual citizens from

Canada and European countries are interviewed --

MSM is sponsored in large part by the medical industry -- my gawd . . . look at the drug ads!!!

[Summer93]

34. Insurance decides

I have often wondered what doctors think of asking the insurance people what the doctor can/cannot do. They spend a lot of time being educated to make great medical decisions and then - the insurance co. makes their decisions for them.

I think the insurance companies should be out of the equation.

Another thing that I heard or read somewhere is just think about - what if your local fire department made a profit.

[JacquesMolay]

35. btw, I think this was part of kerry's platform in 2004...

.. I remember him saying something to this effect in one of the debates.

[rodeodance]

36. Simple---they do not want any competion from the gov!! wimps

[1932]

They want to protect BIG profits (not reasonable...but BIG profits).

[1932]

52. They want to protect BIG profits (not reasonable...but BIG profits). It's like FedEx killing USPS.

[Larissa238]

37. But, we can't keep up with the demand!

It's true, the conservatives say so. http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/26654.html We are going to have to start killing the old because there is no way to meet the demand for health insurance. I mean, the country is so poor. It's not like we are throwing away trillions on dollars on a snipe hunt for weapons in the Middle East.

And I mean, they were right about the WMD's
They were right about Iraq
They will be proved right about Iran.

That's why they are putting up a memorial to Bush in Miami. I mean, he has the highest approval rating of anyone, anywhere, including the approval rating of God in a fundie church.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Nunyabiz]

38. My wife has worked for the federal gov

for 36 years, she/we get the exact same health care that Congress gets which is quite good.
We pay about $280 a month for it however but they pay between 80-100% of everything.

[HeeBGBz]

49. Anything's better than nothing

Of course, my opinion doesn't count, because I'm one of the ones they hope will just anonymously die off.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

61. Stop making sense, it has no place in this argument.

:kick: MKJ

[IndyOp]

66. You are describing John Edwards' plan - create MedicarePlus for everyone who wants it -

and the health insurers will go out of business when people see the quality of service they can get with much, much lower cost. People ARE afraid of single-payer and the insurers will spend billions of dollars making sure that we stay that way - so shifting to a system in which we make single-payer available to all, without killing off health insurance in one step, is politically feasible.

[Freddie Stubbs]

69. We already have that for poor people

It's called Medicade.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. Medicaid Blows

Very few doctors and dentists take Medicaid because the reimbursement is low... At least Medicare's reimbursement is comparable to private insurance...

My mom was on Medicare/Medicaid and I paid her deductibles out of my own pocket to get her out of the Medicaid program because there were so many restrictions...

[CTyankee]

74. Yes, and it is sad.

There is a real prejudice in this country against poor people getting free medical care while the working stiff has to suffer, pay big medical bills, etc.) If it weren't for the elder care of Medicaid, which can allow elderly patients who pauperize themselves (with help from their grown children of course)we would probably see an end to Medicaid.

My mother had the means to pay her way in assisted living, which I guided her into at age 90. She had no chronic illnesses and died at 94, mostly from just giving up after my brother's untimely death. However, her biggest expense was simply her day to day living. It was a lovely assisted living home and she benefitted greatly from it, and she could not continue in her house alone. I worked with a financial advisor she had and we were able to keep her living expense affordable. So many elderly people just do not have such resources and it is a sorrowful thing sometimes for the family...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. Nursing Homes And Assisted Living Centers Are Totally Different As You Know

And Medicaid covers the former and not the latter... It's been my experiences that nursing homes suck while most assisted living facilities are as nice as a hotel...

[CTyankee]

76. Yes, altho my assisted living home started offering slots to Medicaid

patients. For instance I was offered a place for my brother who had had two strokes but was well enough to do OK in assisted living. He was totally on Medicaid, but this was a new benefit in the assisted living program (they were able to get Medicaid patients reimbursement). Before any decision could be made, my brother died suddenly, so I didn't know how the whole thing would work out.

This was in Texas. I wonder what happened...