Universal health care: What say you?

[jtk1519]

So Michael Moore (who looks a lot less like me now that he's shaved) is on PBS pimping his new movie and while I care nothing about Moore or his movie, I do have an interest in the subject of health care and how best to improve the nature of health care in this country.

Is government run universal health care the right option? My mother is in the health care buisness where she spent years as a nurse before moving up into management. She'll tell you that she's in favor of such government run health care, but then I watch her spend hours and hours getting run around through miles of government red tape when dealing with Medicare or Medicaid for patients or my brother's disability, and I have to wonder if I want the government running health care in this country. I would assume if any such national plan was adopted it would of the single-payer variety as opposed to all out socialized health care, but I still don't trust the federal government. If I can't trust the government to enforce their own long standing immigration laws or rescue drowning people after a hurricane, then I sure as hell don't want the meddling in my dentist appointment.

That said, it's obvious something has to be done and I would be 100% in favor of a slight tax increase to pay for universal health care if I knew there was a way to do it without the government screwing it up. But I can already see that slight tax increase being used to fun the building of a bridge for penguins in Alaska. Surely there is another way.

[Bobcat81]

I'm glad to see this subject finally come up for discussion.

Our health care situation at present from what i understand is rated something like 34th?..compaired to other countries. Thats unacceptable. I'm not a big fan of Michael Moore either, but i think his new movie thats opening out this weekend is going to be a home run for most folks in the country. At some lever or another, most Americans have dealt with the problems associated with our present system and are not getting anywhere near the quality of care that they should be.

American health care seems to be more focussed on Profit than Providing and with that type of approach, everyone at some level in the system, is going to be denied something that they either need, or should have.

Europeans & Canadians for instance, have been found to live longer than the average American due in large part by the fact that they have standard health care for all. The theory behind that is that one is more apt to see a doctor at the first signs of illness and getting it treated, rather that waiting to get that urgent care because of the concern of excessive bills and expenses that are part of the current system.

Just a small expample of the corruption that i've noticed first hand: Two years ago i paid the doctors office a visit to get treated for the flu. Simple enough. I called the Doctors office to set up an appointment to be seen at 10:15 am, so i arrived early to make sure i was there on time for my appointment. The office was litterally packed with people and a long line had gathered to sign in at the desk. As we all know, whats the first thing the clerk asks for when you get to the window?? Yes, your insurance card.

I Noticed when i signed in on the log book, there were about 7 others that had the same appointment time as i did. Strange i thought, then, almost an hour and a half later, still waitng in the room it finally dawned on me that the Doctors office had purposely scheduled appointmnts at the same time to collect the extra insurance money, plus the extra $20.00 dollar co-pay at the end would seem to add up.

The bottom line is, there is so much corruption in American public health care. From the Govt. to the insurance companies, down to the doctors that all seem to take advantage of the one thing they are all designed to take care of...YOU! No wonder Michael Moores new movie is called "Sicko"! It's litterally how i feel all the people involved in our present health care system.

There are some bad points & good points when it comes to standardised health care but at least everyone gets their fair share of treatement and we have a better chance of getting away from the corrupt "Me" concept and focus more on the "We", when it comes to Americans health.

[jtk1519]

There are some bad points & good points when it comes to standardised health care but at least everyone gets their fair share of treatement and we have a better chance of getting away from the corrupt "Me" concept and focus more on the "We", when it comes to Americans health.

But would it really become more about "we" or would the "me" profiting off the public simply move from unscrupulous heath care providers to an equally unscrupulous government?

I suppose my youth could bite me in the butt here, but it seems as though Social Security was originally started under the same basic principals... Let the government create and run a program that will insure American's retirements. Simple enough, but the system has been bastardized into a government run piggy bank. Now, decades later, it seems as though the best way to fix social security is through at least a partial privatization. What is there to ensure that government run health care will not meet the same fate?

I've always been more of a "state's rights" guy so I have to wonder if this is something that should or could be left up to the individual states. Obviously, corruption and overall stupidity is not a respecter of state lines so it's foolish to expect an idyllic plan, but I think for a lot of state's it would be more effective and efficient than a federally run system. I'm generally opposed to big government or the increase thereof, but I do agree with Michael Moore (God have mercy on my soul) when he says that health care should be a right associated with citizenship. Monitored and run so as to prevent abuse, but a right none the less.

[Bobcat81]

But would it really become more about "we" or would the "me" profiting off the public simply move from unscrupulous heath care providers to an equally unscrupulous government?

I suppose my youth could bite me in the butt here, but it seems as though Social Security was originally started under the same basic principals... Let the government create and run a program that will insure American's retirements. Simple enough, but the system has been bastardized into a government run piggy bank. Now, decades later, it seems as though the best way to fix social security is through at least a partial privatization. What is there to ensure that government run health care will not meet the same fate?

I've always been more of a "state's rights" guy so I have to wonder if this is something that should or could be left up to the individual states. Obviously, corruption and overall stupidity is not a respecter of state lines so it's foolish to expect an idyllic plan, but I think for a lot of state's it would be more effective and efficient than a federally run system. I'm generally opposed to big government or the increase thereof, but I do agree with Michael Moore (God have mercy on my soul) when he says that health care should be a right associated with citizenship. Monitored and run so as to prevent abuse, but a right none the less.

I look at it this way,..

Standardising health care is one way of taking leverage and control away from the Govt. and everyone else involved and putting it back into your hands where it belongs. The Surgeon General should be in place to help Govt. with this set up and really needs to do his homework on the issue when it comes to planning. That may sound a little complicated but it's really a very simple process.

Take a look at all the standardised plans globally and evaluate the positives & negatives from each plan. Pick the best positives and work them all into one health care plan for us. It's that simple.

By taking out the middle man (insurance), it seems to me that the accountability is reduced by half and therefore more in the control of the public in general. That alone will take care of half of the corruption problem and give an avenue of accountability more on a level of responsible Govt. Look at who controls most of Govt. at the moment? My mind says it's the corporate world and less of the voter. Officials seem to be influenced by corporate big-wigs rather than us regulars because of what?... Money.

Why do most americans stay at their jobs even when they don't like the job or the company they work for? They stay because of the benefits. Take away the need to work for medical benefits and you take away corporate power. Employees will leave if they aren't treated right from that point forward. Corporate heads will be forced to comply with employee needs or suffer the loss of their business. Loose the business and you can't very well afford to thrown millions of dollars into swaying Govt. officials in any given direction. Govt. in turn becomes more responsive to it's people and not these corporate big-wigs. A whole lot of positive things can derive from that concept if it's given the chance.

I don't have all the answers, but thats just one form of many that will be forced upon the Govt. to do more for us than themselves and help bring back the "We" concept and get rid of the "Me".

[slorch]

So Michael Moore (who looks a lot less like me now that he's shaved) is on PBS pimping his new movie and while I care nothing about Moore or his movie, I do have an interest in the subject of health care and how best to improve the nature of health care in this country.

Is government run universal health care the right option? My mother is in the health care buisness where she spent years as a nurse before moving up into management. She'll tell you that she's in favor of such government run health care, but then I watch her spend hours and hours getting run around through miles of government red tape when dealing with Medicare or Medicaid for patients or my brother's disability, and I have to wonder if I want the government running health care in this country. I would assume if any such national plan was adopted it would of the single-payer variety as opposed to all out socialized health care, but I still don't trust the federal government. If I can't trust the government to enforce their own long standing immigration laws or rescue drowning people after a hurricane, then I sure as hell don't want the meddling in my dentist appointment.

That said, it's obvious something has to be done and I would be 100% in favor of a slight tax increase to pay for universal health care if I knew there was a way to do it without the government screwing it up. But I can already see that slight tax increase being used to fun the building of a bridge for penguins in Alaska. Surely there is another way.

slight tax increase? surely you jest...

signed,
Hillary
Taxachusetts
Social Security Administration
Other libs that think they can spend my money better than I can.

[slorch]

I look at it this way,..

Standardising health care is one way of taking leverage and control away from the Govt. and everyone else involved and putting it back into your hands where it belongs. The Surgeon General should be in place to help Govt. with this set up and really needs to do his homework on the issue when it comes to planning. That may sound a little complicated but it's really a very simple process.

Take a look at all the standardised plans globally and evaluate the positives & negatives from each plan. Pick the best positives and work them all into one health care plan for us. It's that simple.

By taking out the middle man (insurance), it seems to me that the accountability is reduced by half and therefore more in the control of the public in general. That alone will take care of half of the corruption problem and give an avenue of accountability more on a level of responsible Govt. Look at who controls most of Govt. at the moment? My mind says it's the corporate world and less of the voter. Officials seem to be influenced by corporate big-wigs rather than us regulars because of what?... Money.

Why do most americans stay at their jobs even when they don't like the job or the company they work for? They stay because of the benefits. Take away the need to work for medical benefits and you take away corporate power. Employees will leave if they aren't treated right from that point forward. Corporate heads will be forced to comply with employee needs or suffer the loss of their business. Loose the business and you can't very well afford to thrown millions of dollars into swaying Govt. officials in any given direction. Govt. in turn becomes more responsive to it's people and not these corporate big-wigs. A whole lot of positive things can derive from that concept if it's given the chance.

I don't have all the answers, but thats just one form of many that will be forced upon the Govt. to do more for us than themselves and help bring back the "We" concept and get rid of the "Me".

In my company's defense, my health care premiums(subsidized by my employer substantially) have risen at a lesser rate than the actual costs( I'm using this term very loosely:mad: ) of medical care. That is another form of a raise, when my payment is less than the increase of costs each year.

While it may bring "normal" health care back to normalcy, standardizing health care IMO would kill the cutting edge research that American medical professionals do today.

Quick, tell me another government program that runs better than what I can do on my own...

(tapping foot waiting)

In today's political system, there are far too many ulterior motives for stuff like this to work. The medical industry already borders on organized crime with having to have scrips for some very basic maintenece drugs or even basic antibiotics(just one example), but adding another coouple layers of beauracracy will cost us more.

[dragonsdaddy]

i don't know where to start. NO IT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA. that's as subliminal as i can make it. the folks who bring you the wonders of service and expediency and efficiency that is the us post office will be glad to take over a much more vital process, ie, your health care. all it would do is change the insured into cash payers as the people who could afford to will pay cash for the services they want or need and every one who can't will continue waiting in interminable lines as some 3rd level bureaucrat who can't read past a ninth grade level and couldn't spell staph to save your life decides your appendectomy isn't critical(enough) so it can wait. doctors will drop out of practices as soon as they can afford to, and new doctors will die on the vine, or never go to med school at all. more governmental control over your life is NEVER a good thing.

[TEXREB]

Insurance companies will NEVER let this happen. They would pour millions into campaign coffers and spend even more money on lobbying to keep this from happening.

That being said, obviously something needs to be done about the rising costs of medical care and insurance or more and more people will become uninsured.

I think letting the federal government run health care is a bad idea. They are not efficient at running anything except the military.

[dragonsdaddy]

Insurance companies will NEVER let this happen. I think letting the federal government run health care is a bad idea. They are not efficient at running anything except the military.

and they do that best when the blinders of wartime go on. peacetime military intelligence is neigh on moronic. too many pols putting too much pork in too many bills affecting the processes of military control. civilians have very little to add to the military, that is positive anyway.

[ktCarl]

So Michael Moore (who looks a lot less like me now that he's shaved) is on PBS pimping his new movie and while I care nothing about Moore or his movie, I do have an interest in the subject of health care and how best to improve the nature of health care in this country.

Is government run universal health care the right option? My mother is in the health care buisness where she spent years as a nurse before moving up into management. She'll tell you that she's in favor of such government run health care, but then I watch her spend hours and hours getting run around through miles of government red tape when dealing with Medicare or Medicaid for patients or my brother's disability, and I have to wonder if I want the government running health care in this country. I would assume if any such national plan was adopted it would of the single-payer variety as opposed to all out socialized health care, but I still don't trust the federal government. If I can't trust the government to enforce their own long standing immigration laws or rescue drowning people after a hurricane, then I sure as hell don't want the meddling in my dentist appointment.

That said, it's obvious something has to be done and I would be 100% in favor of a slight tax increase to pay for universal health care if I knew there was a way to do it without the government screwing it up. But I can already see that slight tax increase being used to fun the building of a bridge for penguins in Alaska. Surely there is another way.


The tax increase to pay for government run health care would be STAGGERING, not slight. When First Lady Hillary proposed her health care program it would have been the biggest government snatch of the GNP in the history of the U.S.

How come all those in favor of government run health care actually have that much confidence in the government running ANYTHING?! They have shown to be inept in running anything. Why all of a sudden you have this great confidence in the government? It astounds me. My parents are immigrants from England and they will tell you how much government health care sucks. I suppose the individuals that tell you how great health care in Europe is has a vested interest in it happening over here. I've also worked with several Canadians and they tell me the government snatches almost half their paychecks to pay for all their government run programs. Guess what? When they want quality health care they come here. A lot of the reason it's so expensive here is due to a lot of regulations on health care and pharmaceuticals that are already imposed by our government. I don't understand the mentality in this country now that if something is broke hand it over to Uncle Sam.

[dragonsdaddy]

i would be willing to accept any health care that the congress would do for themselves. drunk ted, devil hilary ,etal will not be under the same umbrella of protection as joe q public.

[Redhoss]

I'm against it totally.

Now what I might support is an option for the govt. to provide access by choice for those who might not be covered with insurance.

Or some private organizations where people can buy healthcare coverage in pools which would keep the costs down and competitive.

There are other ways to amend the system and still keep it market driven.

[mad_fan]

Being married to a Canadian I can offer this...

1. Ms Mad last year of working in Canada (1995) she paid 47% of her income to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Provincial and local taxes are additional.

2. I have in-laws that come to the US for medical care and pay cash. You can die waiting in Canada.

3. I side with the Supreme Court of Canada

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006813



This is what you get when you turn the 2nd biggest and most inefficient part of your economy over to THE biggest and most inefficient part of the economy.

[ktCarl]

I'm against it totally.

Now what I might support is an option for the govt. to provide access by choice for those who might not be covered with insurance.

Or some private organizations where people can buy healthcare coverage in pools which would keep the costs down and competitive.

There are other ways to amend the system and still keep it market driven.

Wasn't Social Security voluntary in the beginning?

[FeeltheHaka]

As one who used to work in the health care industry, I am totally for it. Not just for patients; but also Doctors, Nurses, etc. If people only knew how much of a Doctor's resource is spent just trying to get paid by the insurance companies. It could benefit everyone. I travel to Canada very often. I was just there in Montreal 2 days ago. The only people you hear slamming Canadian healthcare is carefully selected people on TV. If you talk to the average Canadian on the street, you will see they are happy with it. Don't believe all the horror stories you here. Also, Candian healthcare in a lot of ways is more advanced than the US. Especially, in the field of preventative medicine. Don't believe the hype about your taxes being raised for this. The amount of taxes we pay now that goes for healthcare could pay most of it. The facts are not known to most people exactly how much of our tax dollars goes towards the healthcare industry. I encorage one to do some research on their own on this. Take what you pay now plus your insurance premiums, and I bet a natioanal healthcare system properly run, would be about the same, if not less taking in to account catching conditions early, and good preventative medicine. Alot of the monies now go to the insurance industry, medical supply companies, pharamceutical companies, etc. Remember we do have socialized medicine now. It is called the county hosptial. Parkland, J.P. Smith, V.A. hosptials, etc. Insurance companies, Bureaucracy, etc. ensures that these entities run as inefficient as possible. If people only new how much healthcare businesses pay off politicians, they would be astounded. When I say healthcare businesses, I mean insurance, medical equipment, pharmaceutical, etc. Yes, there are that bad. For a country that is as rich and advances as America is; it is just disgusting how poor out healthcare is.
The funny thing is, the sicker people get; the more it costs. Also, we risk then spread of diseases, and our ability to stop some genetic disorders from getting worse and becoming more expensive.
As TEXREB has stated. The healthcare industry will never let it happen. They have just too much money and power. They do a great job of discrediting anyone who opposes them. THis even with facts that are right in front of their faces.
I have not seen the Micheal Moore movie yet. From the Ads, it kind of looks funny.
Dr.Edward help me out on this.

[FeeltheHaka]

Just after my last post, I just got off the phone with my brother-in-law. He is a biomedical engineer for a big med. supply company. He told me of a new product that they just developed. I replied that this product would be a great thing to help bring relief to burn patients. He told me that they are tailoring this product for the cosmetic surgery industry, "Where the money is."
I'm sorry to say this has the potential to be a great product to bring alot of people relief, but money wins over. The unnecessary cosmetic surgery industry is also a bit of a problem in this game. Sadly, it could be set up to benefit everyone, but unfortunately money gets in the way of doing the right thing, and helping people. This is one of the few reasons, I left the the health care industry.

[dragonsdaddy]

As one who used to work in the health care industry, I am totally for it. Not just for patients; but also Doctors, Nurses, etc. If people only knew how much of a Doctor's resource is spent just trying to get paid by the insurance companies. It could benefit everyone. I travel to Canada very often. I was just there in Montreal 2 days ago. The only people you hear slamming Canadian healthcare is carefully selected people on TV. If you talk to the average Canadian on the street, you will see they are happy with it. Don't believe all the horror stories you here. Also, Candian healthcare in a lot of ways is more advanced than the US. Especially, in the field of preventative medicine. Don't believe the hype about your taxes being raised for this. The amount of taxes we pay now that goes for healthcare could pay most of it. The facts are not known to most people exactly how much of our tax dollars goes towards the healthcare industry. I encorage one to do some research on their own on this. Take what you pay now plus your insurance premiums, and I bet a natioanal healthcare system properly run, would be about the same, if not less taking in to account catching conditions early, and good preventative medicine. Alot of the monies now go to the insurance industry, medical supply companies, pharamceutical companies, etc. Remember we do have socialized medicine now. It is called the county hosptial. Parkland, J.P. Smith, V.A. hosptials, etc. Insurance companies, Bureaucracy, etc. ensures that these entities run as inefficient as possible. If people only new how much healthcare businesses pay off politicians, they would be astounded. When I say healthcare businesses, I mean insurance, medical equipment, pharmaceutical, etc. Yes, there are that bad. For a country that is as rich and advances as America is; it is just disgusting how poor out healthcare is.
The funny thing is, the sicker people get; the more it costs. Also, we risk then spread of diseases, and our ability to stop some genetic disorders from getting worse and becoming more expensive.
As TEXREB has stated. The healthcare industry will never let it happen. They have just too much money and power. They do a great job of discrediting anyone who opposes them. THis even with facts that are right in front of their faces.
I have not seen the Micheal Moore movie yet. From the Ads, it kind of looks funny.
Dr.Edward help me out on this.

dr edward will repectfully refer to me on this, as he is a phd. not saying heis opinion isn't valuable, just not from a medical prospective. one thing i can guarantee will never be socialized is the legal profession. they do , in fact, write the laws and it will never happen, or even ever be discussed.

i'm going to write my congressman about socializing auto repair. i can't believe how much i've spent on my old junkers recently. and someone else should be helping me foot the bill as it is proving to be a hardship for me.

[jtk1519]

If universal health care is not the solution, then what is? Something has to be done. Far too many of the young, elderly and poor are left without proper health care because of the price of insurance and treatment. I don't want to get on an inappropriate soapbox here, but I don't know how a government can justify spending billions upon billions of dollars to "liberate" a foreign country from an oppressive regime while it's own children are left without the basic health care a society of our wealth should demand.

[FeeltheHaka]

If universal health care is not the solution, then what is? Something has to be done. Far too many of the young, elderly and poor are left without proper health care because of the price of insurance and treatment. I don't want to get on an inappropriate soapbox here, but I don't know how a government can justify spending billions upon billions of dollars to "liberate" a foreign country from an oppressive regime while it's own children are left without the basic health care a society of our wealth should demand.

As crazy as this sounds what I believe it will take is some sort of catastrophie or plague. Possibly even a depression.

[FeeltheHaka]

dr edward will repectfully refer to me on this, as he is a phd. not saying heis opinion isn't valuable, just not from a medical prospective. one thing i can guarantee will never be socialized is the legal profession. they do , in fact, write the laws and it will never happen, or even ever be discussed.

i'm going to write my congressman about socializing auto repair. i can't believe how much i've spent on my old junkers recently. and someone else should be helping me foot the bill as it is proving to be a hardship for me.

Good point on the legal profession. It is a definately a double edge sword.

On the auto repair comparison. I'm not sure of your point. One can't trivialize this as to compare auto repair to a life or death need. Like I posted, the more health problems are neglected, the more expensive it becomes for everyone. Pay a little now or alot later. Also, it is not a matter of if, but when a contagious disease rapidly spreads that probably could have been prevented earlier spread like wild fire among everyone. Not trying to fear monger, but apply common sense and historical presedence. Just look at diseases in third world countries.

[dragonsdaddy]

Good point on the legal profession. It is a definately a double edge sword.

On the auto repair comparison. I'm not sure of your point. One can't trivialize this as to compare auto repair to a life or death need. Like I posted, the more health problems are neglected, the more expensive it becomes for everyone. Pay a little now or alot later. Also, it is not a matter of if, but when a contagious disease rapidly spreads that probably could have been prevented earlier spread like wild fire among everyone. Not trying to fear monger, but apply common sense and historical presedence. Just look at diseases in third world countries.

i'm wondering. will your socialized medicine have the claws to force me to practice against my will? will it even more than today tell me what i can and can't do with my license. because as i stated earlier, the medical field is going to get much less popular, and less populated eventually. would you work 100+ hr weeks with unbelieveable amounts of stress for less than $2 an hour for 3-7 years so as to be able to be told by a lower-level bureaucrat how to practice and how much you can charge? like all governmental fiats, there will be unintended consequences. and these won't be very pretty ones, imo.

[FeeltheHaka]

i'm wondering. will your socialized medicine have the claws to force me to practice against my will? will it even more than today tell me what i can and can't do with my license. because as i stated earlier, the medical field is going to get much less popular, and less populated eventually. would you work 100+ hr weeks with unbelieveable amounts of stress for less than $2 an hour for 3-7 years so as to be able to be told by a lower-level bureaucrat how to practice and how much you can charge? like all governmental fiats, there will be unintended consequences. and these won't be very pretty ones, imo.

I don't have all the answers. What do you mean by practice against your will? What can't you do with your license now that you want to? Is there anything in the hippocratic oath that makes you practice against your will, and do things with your license that you don't want to do? There will need to be some standards, it will be painful for some along the way; but systems evolve and grow. Something like this will need time to have kinks worked out. Another reason why this won't happen is that too many want instant gratification. They think that you announce a new system, then poof!! it is in place running like a well oiled machine. But I believe under a universal healthcare program, Healthcare workers will benefit the most; and their quality of life will get better. As it is in other countries with universal healthcare. Right now, I believe too many healthcare workers work too many hours. Another reason I got out of the field. I should have gotten into anesthesiology. Under a new system, there can be work rules; which I believe can lead to fewer mistakes and better patient contact.
Really, I don't want to debate this. It ain't goin to happen. Too much big business and politics involved. Like I posted earlier. Unfortunately it will take something catastrophic to happen to change anything. And, if I know better, these businesses and politicians are set up to profit from something like this as well.

[dragonsdaddy]

[QUOTE=FeeltheHaka;500785] What do you mean by practice against your will? i mean, when there is an acute shortage of physicians, and i no longer want to be one of them, will the socializing police come arrest me when i don't answer the summons? it'll be the case soon enough, if the process comes to pass. and how pray tell will the same number of drs see more patients, and simultaneously work fewer hours? if all lawyers would disappear, we could relieve a few dozen of the time vacuums. this started innocuously enough, ostensibly, to buy a few votes for the libs, and has become big business as you say.

[DrEdward]

A nationalized medical system is likely a very inefficient alternative to the current system. That is, it will prove to be more costly and likely less effective than what we currently have in place. That is not to say that the current system is perfect, but any system put in place by a centralized governmental authority will not prove to be very responsive to the vastly differing needs of individuals. Governmental systems work very well in the case of public goods - goods or services that can/must be provided on an indivisible basis - such as fire protection, national defense. Health care is as much of a private good as one can find; it is inherently personal for the most part. Rather than have the government decide how much of it we should have, a market mechanism is much more likely to allow individuals to decide for themselves how much health care services to utilize. Without getting into how much a national healthcare system might cost (and it is most assuredly non-trivial), if there is some desire to move in such a direction because the current system is perceived as too expensive, why don't we first try an incentive approach. Our good and noble representatives in Congress (that should give you an example of why ones expectations for a centralized health care plan will not work real well) have set up a system that your expenses on medical care are essentially not deductable on your income taxes unless they exceed 7.5% of your income. So before moving into a government provided system, why not first try making the current system more affordable to the individuals by reducing/eliminating the % of income threshold of the deductability of medical expense for income tax purposes? For those not paying income taxes, there are mechanism in the tax code that essentially consitute a negative tax rate. That same mechanism could be employed for medical care credits. This approach allows for individuals to make their own choices with respect to medical care and avoids the inevitable bureaucracy and one size fits all approach that so characterizes governmental programs.

[jtk1519]

A nationalized medical system is likely a very inefficient alternative to the current system. That is, it will prove to be more costly and likely less effective than what we currently have in place. That is not to say that the current system is perfect, but any system put in place by a centralized governmental authority will not prove to be very responsive to the vastly differing needs of individuals. Governmental systems work very well in the case of public goods - goods or services that can/must be provided on an indivisible basis - such as fire protection, national defense. Health care is as much of a private good as one can find; it is inherently personal for the most part. Rather than have the government decide how much of it we should have, a market mechanism is much more likely to allow individuals to decide for themselves how much health care services to utilize. Without getting into how much a national healthcare system might cost (and it is most assuredly non-trivial), if there is some desire to move in such a direction because the current system is perceived as too expensive, why don't we first try an incentive approach. Our good and noble representatives in Congress (that should give you an example of why ones expectations for a centralized health care plan will not work real well) have set up a system that your expenses on medical care are essentially not deductable on your income taxes unless they exceed 7.5% of your income. So before moving into a government provided system, why not first try making the current system more affordable to the individuals by reducing/eliminating the % of income threshold of the deductability of medical expense for income tax purposes? For those not paying income taxes, there are mechanism in the tax code that essentially consitute a negative tax rate. That same mechanism could be employed for medical care credits. This approach allows for individuals to make their own choices with respect to medical care and avoids the inevitable bureaucracy and one size fits all approach that so characterizes governmental programs.

Good stuff. Would you also agree that reducing frivolous lawsuits and capping the amount that can be awarded in legal cases would go a long way to reducing insurance premiums, thereby reducing the overall cost of health care? I think that is where we should start. It's by no means the answer, but I know how much my doctor is having to pay for malpractice insurance and that is a crime. Seems like reducing that would eventually trickle down to the public.

[dragonsdaddy]

A nationalized medical system is likely a very inefficient alternative to the current system. That is, it will prove to be more costly and likely less effective than what we currently have in place. That is not to say that the current system is perfect, but any system put in place by a centralized governmental authority will not prove to be very responsive to the vastly differing needs of individuals. Governmental systems work very well in the case of public goods - goods or services that can/must be provided on an indivisible basis - such as fire protection, national defense. Health care is as much of a private good as one can find; it is inherently personal for the most part. Rather than have the government decide how much of it we should have, a market mechanism is much more likely to allow individuals to decide for themselves how much health care services to utilize. Without getting into how much a national healthcare system might cost (and it is most assuredly non-trivial), if there is some desire to move in such a direction because the current system is perceived as too expensive, why don't we first try an incentive approach. Our good and noble representatives in Congress (that should give you an example of why ones expectations for a centralized health care plan will not work real well) have set up a system that your expenses on medical care are essentially not deductable on your income taxes unless they exceed 7.5% of your income. So before moving into a government provided system, why not first try making the current system more affordable to the individuals by reducing/eliminating the % of income threshold of the deductability of medical expense for income tax purposes? For those not paying income taxes, there are mechanism in the tax code that essentially consitute a negative tax rate. That same mechanism could be employed for medical care credits. This approach allows for individuals to make their own choices with respect to medical care and avoids the inevitable bureaucracy and one size fits all approach that so characterizes governmental programs.

i didn't underestimate the good dr. these same generous congresspeople have devised a terrific health plan for themselves and those retired from the "service" of our country thru their branch of the government. all the while the military veterans are treated worse than almost any pet in this area. you've got to love how they sacrifice themselves.

[DrEdward]

Good stuff. Would you also agree that reducing frivolous lawsuits and capping the amount that can be awarded in legal cases would go a long way to reducing insurance premiums, thereby reducing the overall cost of health care? I think that is where we should start. It's by no means the answer, but I know how much my doctor is having to pay for malpractice insurance and that is a crime. Seems like reducing that would eventually trickle down to the public.

My opinions of lawyers should probably go unspoken, but considering my opinionof congreeman, the vast majority of whom are lawyers, it is probably well understood anyway. When I am watching the tube and the latest advertisement from some damn Massachusetts attorney comes on - sokolov or something like that - who is out there trolling for clients for a class action lawsuit, I get really hacked off. There is clearly a role for a legal process, but a sustem that engages in so many frivolous lawsuits and on occasions awards outragous amounts of "damages" surely must be modified. But underlying this is the notion that folks must undertake some responsibility for their own actions. Just because some damn attorney encourages you to do something that will make him a lot of money is no reason that you should do so. Society needs to restore some sense of individual responsibility and ethics which have clearly been lost in the last 50 years or so. (See $54 million suit for a pari of pants as an example - filed by a damn DC lawyer.) That in and of itself would reduce the costs of medical malpractice.

[dragonsdaddy]

My opinions of lawyers should probably go unspoken, but considering my opinionof congreeman, the vast majority of whom are lawyers, it is probably well understood anyway. When I am watching the tube and the latest advertisement from some damn Massachusetts attorney comes on - sokolov or something like that - who is out there trolling for clients for a class action lawsuit, I get really hacked off. There is clearly a role for a legal process, but a sustem that engages in so many frivolous lawsuits and on occasions awards outragous amounts of "damages" surely must be modified. But underlying this is the notion that folks must undertake some responsibility for their own actions. Just because some damn attorney encourages you to do something that will make him a lot of money is no reason that you should do so. Society needs to restore some sense of individual responsibility and ethics which have clearly been lost in the last 50 years or so. (See $54 million suit for a pari of pants as an example - filed by a damn DC lawyer.) That in and of itself would reduce the costs of medical malpractice.
damnable damnation dr. that's only a tenth of what they deserve, imo.

[slorch]

dr edward will repectfully refer to me on this, as he is a phd. not saying heis opinion isn't valuable, just not from a medical prospective. one thing i can guarantee will never be socialized is the legal profession. they do , in fact, write the laws and it will never happen, or even ever be discussed.

i'm going to write my congressman about socializing auto repair. i can't believe how much i've spent on my old junkers recently. and someone else should be helping me foot the bill as it is proving to be a hardship for me.

You must have the right to national car care...:D

nice point.

[twcpfan1]

Why are we dancing all around the topic at hand? And not cutting to the chase. Quite simply put, those who can afford adequate healthcare insurance will oppose the idea of universal healthcare. Those who have inadequate or nonexistent healthcare insurance will support it.

[Redhoss]

Wasn't Social Security voluntary in the beginning?

I'm old but not that old :D

I hope someone knows because I don't.

[twcpfan1]

Australia has nationalized healthcare for basic medical care (of course the definition of which becomes open to interpretation on a regular basis). You can however, (and many do) supplement the basic gov't healthcare with private insurance. It does not however push you up to the front of the line for anything major. So you're still at the mercy of beaureaucrats who will determine whether your condition is urgent or not.

[PaulinPlano]

Being married to a Canadian I can offer this...

1. Ms Mad last year of working in Canada (1995) she paid 47% of her income to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Provincial and local taxes are additional.

2. I have in-laws that come to the US for medical care and pay cash. You can die waiting in Canada.

3. I side with the Supreme Court of Canada

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006813



This is what you get when you turn the 2nd biggest and most inefficient part of your economy over to THE biggest and most inefficient part of the economy.

I am so glad you made this post...

The whole reason America has the overall lead in the best healthcare advances is because of our capitalist system of medicine.

Good people, I am so far right on this issue I don't even want to get started. If you want socialized medicine, move out of the USA!

[Redhoss]

My opinions of lawyers should probably go unspoken, but considering my opinionof congreeman, the vast majority of whom are lawyers, it is probably well understood anyway. When I am watching the tube and the latest advertisement from some damn Massachusetts attorney comes on - sokolov or something like that - who is out there trolling for clients for a class action lawsuit, I get really hacked off. There is clearly a role for a legal process, but a sustem that engages in so many frivolous lawsuits and on occasions awards outragous amounts of "damages" surely must be modified. But underlying this is the notion that folks must undertake some responsibility for their own actions. Just because some damn attorney encourages you to do something that will make him a lot of money is no reason that you should do so. Society needs to restore some sense of individual responsibility and ethics which have clearly been lost in the last 50 years or so. (See $54 million suit for a pari of pants as an example - filed by a damn DC lawyer.) That in and of itself would reduce the costs of medical malpractice.

There should be limits of how many lawyers can be members of Congress at any one time :rolleyes:

[Bobcat81]

Being married to a Canadian I can offer this...

1. Ms Mad last year of working in Canada (1995) she paid 47% of her income to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Provincial and local taxes are additional.

2. I have in-laws that come to the US for medical care and pay cash. You can die waiting in Canada.

3. I side with the Supreme Court of Canada

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006813



This is what you get when you turn the 2nd biggest and most inefficient part of your economy over to THE biggest and most inefficient part of the economy.

From what i understand, a significant number of doctors have left their practices in Canada choosing to come to the United States to make more money. Reading the article it seems logical that one realistic reason why Candians are having to wait for important surgeries to take place is there aren't enough qualified doctors per capita to handle the loads.

What burns me is the fact that quite a few doctors here in the states are more consumed with greed than they are concerned about keeping people healthy. They would just assumed come in for a couple of hours and get "Judges Syndrome" and take the rest of the day off and go play golf or what ever it is they do for fun.

Being a doctor should be considered a profession of "passion" to help the sick, not a means to become wealthy. Granted Doctors should make more than most other professions because the the level of skill & knowledge they have to have.

What kind of income does the average general practitioner, or surgeon make in Canada under the governmental system?

I'm not going to knock standardised health care. Like i've said, we should have the means and the ability to take care of our own and focus on that to make a system where everyone has a fair chance to live a healthy productive life here. I agree that at present, it's almost impossible due to the corruption of our system, but there has to be a better way. It really ticks me off to see that the system would rather provide Terrorist detainees in Guantanamo Bay, with better health facilities than those of our troops that put them there have. There is no need for a family in this country to pay years of health care premiums and turn around years later having to rely on it for an important surgery, only to see the insurance company decline coverage due to some little hidden clause that was put there to be interpreted any way the insurance company sees fit. Furthermore, to see a physician decline the help, rather than treating the patient then worry about the finacial battle later on. It seems to be a common thought in the healthcare industry that.." a dead man can't complain"...

If there were a way to knock out the middle man (insurance companies) from having control, clean up the governmental greed & deceit, then in my opinion, it would be a worthwhile system to have in place.

[Bobcat81]

My opinions of lawyers should probably go unspoken, but considering my opinionof congreeman, the vast majority of whom are lawyers, it is probably well understood anyway. When I am watching the tube and the latest advertisement from some damn Massachusetts attorney comes on - sokolov or something like that - who is out there trolling for clients for a class action lawsuit, I get really hacked off. There is clearly a role for a legal process, but a sustem that engages in so many frivolous lawsuits and on occasions awards outragous amounts of "damages" surely must be modified. But underlying this is the notion that folks must undertake some responsibility for their own actions. Just because some damn attorney encourages you to do something that will make him a lot of money is no reason that you should do so. Society needs to restore some sense of individual responsibility and ethics which have clearly been lost in the last 50 years or so. (See $54 million suit for a pari of pants as an example - filed by a damn DC lawyer.) That in and of itself would reduce the costs of medical malpractice.


I'm with you 100% there Doc.

Frivolousness has to stop. I think of all the problems in our country and abroad, and upon disecting each case down to it's root cause..the same four letter word always seems to surface,.... greed!

[FeeltheHaka]

A nationalized medical system is likely a very inefficient alternative to the current system. That is, it will prove to be more costly and likely less effective than what we currently have in place. That is not to say that the current system is perfect, but any system put in place by a centralized governmental authority will not prove to be very responsive to the vastly differing needs of individuals. Governmental systems work very well in the case of public goods - goods or services that can/must be provided on an indivisible basis - such as fire protection, national defense. Health care is as much of a private good as one can find; it is inherently personal for the most part. Rather than have the government decide how much of it we should have, a market mechanism is much more likely to allow individuals to decide for themselves how much health care services to utilize. Without getting into how much a national healthcare system might cost (and it is most assuredly non-trivial), if there is some desire to move in such a direction because the current system is perceived as too expensive, why don't we first try an incentive approach. Our good and noble representatives in Congress (that should give you an example of why ones expectations for a centralized health care plan will not work real well) have set up a system that your expenses on medical care are essentially not deductable on your income taxes unless they exceed 7.5% of your income. So before moving into a government provided system, why not first try making the current system more affordable to the individuals by reducing/eliminating the % of income threshold of the deductability of medical expense for income tax purposes? For those not paying income taxes, there are mechanism in the tax code that essentially consitute a negative tax rate. That same mechanism could be employed for medical care credits. This approach allows for individuals to make their own choices with respect to medical care and avoids the inevitable bureaucracy and one size fits all approach that so characterizes governmental programs.

Your tax credit idea has some merits. But, there needs to be way to control the costs of healthcare. There is nothing in this idea that gives the healthcare industry incentives to keep prices down. There is only incentives to raise them this way.
I think if there is a way to make healthcare more competitive, then the costs and quality can be improved. At my job, there is no choice in which company I use for my health plan. There is a choice of the way your covered, but not in a choice of who covers me and my family.

[dragonsdaddy]

Your tax credit idea has some merits. But, there needs to be way to control the costs of healthcare. There is nothing in this idea that gives the healthcare industry incentives to keep prices down. There is only incentives to raise them this way.
I think if there is a way to make healthcare more competitive, then the costs and quality can be improved. At my job, there is no choice in which company I use for my health plan. There is a choice of the way your covered, but not in a choice of who covers me and my family.

i'm all for preventing fraud waste and abuse. unfortunately, the ways you'll be seeing that everyone will glom onto, is either limiting services, or capping drs fees. that goes back to my earlier point. when the govment starts down that road, you'll be soon enjoying having your kids knee surgery done by a much less qualified and dedicated knife wielder, if you can find anyone at all to do it. whichever path you take, just glance up north of detroit to see what you are hoping for.

[HebronHawk]

The present system squeezes patients and health care providers against insurance company profit margins, which are unregulated for the most part.

I track the numbers for my company, and generally our company employees turn in claims that amount to approx. 65% or less of the total premiums paid to the insurer.

Yet, our premiums continue to climb by 20% or more each year. I know we are funding insurance company profits big time.

However, our insurance company is no different than the rest.

When I get competitive quotes on our group, our present company is among the lowest premiums.

I think that the government would do worse but it would be good to find a way to keep the insurance companies honest.

[twcpfan1]

Like I said before, you will never get objectivity on this subject. The ones who can afford adequate health insurance, the ones who can't, medical practicioners and pharmaceutical companies will always have opposing views on the subject. Like every other discussion that ultimately comes down to our pocket books, we will always argue for anything that will put the least amount of strain on it. Whether it is beneficial to the common good is irrelevant.

[HebronHawk]

I'm glad to see this subject finally come up for discussion.

Our health care situation at present from what i understand is rated something like 34th?..compaired to other countries. Thats unacceptable. I'm not a big fan of Michael Moore either, but i think his new movie thats opening out this weekend is going to be a home run for most folks in the country. At some lever or another, most Americans have dealt with the problems associated with our present system and are not getting anywhere near the quality of care that they should be.

American health care seems to be more focussed on Profit than Providing and with that type of approach, everyone at some level in the system, is going to be denied something that they either need, or should have.

Europeans & Canadians for instance, have been found to live longer than the average American due in large part by the fact that they have standard health care for all. The theory behind that is that one is more apt to see a doctor at the first signs of illness and getting it treated, rather that waiting to get that urgent care because of the concern of excessive bills and expenses that are part of the current system.

Just a small expample of the corruption that i've noticed first hand: Two years ago i paid the doctors office a visit to get treated for the flu. Simple enough. I called the Doctors office to set up an appointment to be seen at 10:15 am, so i arrived early to make sure i was there on time for my appointment. The office was litterally packed with people and a long line had gathered to sign in at the desk. As we all know, whats the first thing the clerk asks for when you get to the window?? Yes, your insurance card.

I Noticed when i signed in on the log book, there were about 7 others that had the same appointment time as i did. Strange i thought, then, almost an hour and a half later, still waitng in the room it finally dawned on me that the Doctors office had purposely scheduled appointmnts at the same time to collect the extra insurance money, plus the extra $20.00 dollar co-pay at the end would seem to add up.

The bottom line is, there is so much corruption in American public health care. From the Govt. to the insurance companies, down to the doctors that all seem to take advantage of the one thing they are all designed to take care of...YOU! No wonder Michael Moores new movie is called "Sicko"! It's litterally how i feel all the people involved in our present health care system.

There are some bad points & good points when it comes to standardised health care but at least everyone gets their fair share of treatement and we have a better chance of getting away from the corrupt "Me" concept and focus more on the "We", when it comes to Americans health.

I have a friend who is a doctor group administrator and is recognized within his industry. In order to help his doctor group remain profitable, the doctor is allowed to spend an average of 15 minutes with each patient at most.

The appointments are stacked up to allow for no-shows and to keep the examining rooms full at all times.

[HebronHawk]

Wasn't Social Security voluntary in the beginning?

Yes. That's the way that FDR sold it to Congress.

Now, there is not even the masquerade that premiums are going into a govt. held trust fund.

It is now a mandatory TAX for which nothing is promised.

My Congressman is telling me that there are plenty of Dems who would like to make high earners pay more into the fund and take nothing out. Another socialist gambit!

[HebronHawk]

There should be limits of how many lawyers can be members of Congress at any one time :rolleyes:

My congressman is an MD. Dr. Michael Burgess from Highland Village.

[FeeltheHaka]

i'm all for preventing fraud waste and abuse. unfortunately, the ways you'll be seeing that everyone will glom onto, is either limiting services, or capping drs fees. that goes back to my earlier point. when the govment starts down that road, you'll be soon enjoying having your kids knee surgery done by a much less qualified and dedicated knife wielder, if you can find anyone at all to do it. whichever path you take, just glance up north of detroit to see what you are hoping for.

I go to Canada quite often. I was in Montreal Wednesday and Thursday. Canadians are happy with their healthcare. Don't believe the hype on Television. I think the capping of Drs. fees by insurance companies is atrocious and just plain stupid. You can find other ways to bill patients to get back the losses on fees. And the constant attempt to renegiotiate and argue the fees by the insurance companies is so egregious it isn't even funny. People have no idea just how slimy and corrupt the insurance industry is. I thought it was awesome when those Physicians in, I believe Philadelphia unionized, and fought back.
What I would like to see in a national healthcare program is Salary with incentives and work rules. Also, big help with medical school loans would be a great incentive as well. How would anyone here like to begin their career with a quarter of a million dollars in debt plus huge malpractice insurance bill. All this while being exhausted from having just completed residency.
And as far as having procedures done by less qualified and educated individuals; it is happening now. Look at the proliferation of P.A.s, Nurse Practitioners. Heck, one can become a phelbotomist with about an hour training, and perform an invasive procedure (drawing blood.) And when that 1 hour trained phlebotomist makes a mistake, guess who the lawyers go after.

[dragonsdaddy]

I go to Canada quite often. I was in Montreal Wednesday and Thursday. Canadians are happy with their healthcare. Don't believe the hype on Television. I think the capping of Drs. fees by insurance companies is atrocious and just plain stupid. You can find other ways to bill patients to get back the losses on fees. And the constant attempt to renegiotiate and argue the fees by the insurance companies is so egregious it isn't even funny. People have no idea just how slimy and corrupt the insurance industry is. I thought it was awesome when those Physicians in, I believe Philadelphia unionized, and fought back.
What I would like to see in a national healthcare program is Salary with incentives and work rules. Also, big help with medical school loans would be a great incentive as well. How would anyone here like to begin their career with a quarter of a million dollars in debt plus huge malpractice insurance bill. All this while being exhausted from having just completed residency.
And as far as having procedures done by less qualified and educated individuals; it is happening now. Look at the proliferation of P.A.s, Nurse Practitioners. Heck, one can become a phelbotomist with about an hour training, and perform an invasive procedure (drawing blood.) And when that 1 hour trained phlebotomist makes a mistake, guess who the lawyers go after.the only concensus of this august body is that when you have 100 lawyers buried up to their necks in a sandpit, you don't have enough sand.