Universal Health Care? No, Thank You!

it is time for a change.  This system is not working.  Let's look at other countries, who are doing a much much better job of healthcare than us and copy it.  Pick the best system out there and copy it.

It is the responsibility of the people to supply healthcare.  In a government of the people, for the people by the people the people are the government, therefore it is the responsibilty of the government, as representatives of the people.

The government is just the organization of the people.  The people want reliable healthcare for everybody and they tell their employees, the government, what they want done, and the government has to do it.

Because of the everyone for himself kind of attitude we have here, we have the lowest life expectancy in the developed world, the highest child mortality rate, the highest rate of deaths caused by preventable diseases, the lowest child birth weights, the highest obesity rates, the highest diabetis rates, need I go on? 

It is obvious that this system does not work.  it doesn't work because it does not guarantee healthcare for all, not because of government involvement.

Every Western European country has better healthcare systems.  Some are single payer, like The U.K. and some not like France and Germany.  france incidently is recognized as having the best healtchare system in the world. 

What you seem to forget is that we are not subservient to the government, they are subservient to us. 

The government is simply an elected body to carry out the will of the people,

In that case who is really letting us down?  We are, because when they fail us we don't so anything about it.  They are our employees.

as far as Universal Healthcare is concerned, I have lived in England and I have lived in Germany.  I can say from first hand experience, that their healthcare is far superior to ours.

It's not government letting us down, in a government for the people by the people, it us ourselves who is letting us down. 

Hmmm.  I was born in 1966.  I was working in the 80's and the 90's.  In a job that required me to know the tax codes and health care legislation (Section 89 was the bane of my existence).  I had to implement the first HMO at a Fortune 500 company and educate the employees about health care choices/costs and retirement fund options.

I HAVE had a few people change my mind on issues related to exchanges that we've had via the Internet.  I am not immune to the impact of excellent, impartial data.  Far from it.  So, if you cite sources that back up your claims, you would very likely get a positive response from me.

But putting claims out there without sources when we seem to remember the same time period very diffierently is irresponsible and pushes you into the realm of rumor mongering.  Which I'm sure that you wouldn't want to do, yes?

I don't know about you, but I LOVE data and I love debate and I love an exchange of well-supported ideas.  This is fun!

I lived through the 80s and 90s.  I remember what was going on.  I am a student of our history.  You probably are, too.  I don't have time to dig around and find sources.  If you want to learn more about Carter's and Reagan's and Clinton's and Bush's tax policies, then have at it.

I know that no matter what I write, the people who read this will not be persuaded to change ideologies, therefore, I'll not waste my time.  This whole thread is one ridiculous syllogism and non-sequitur after another, that is, with the exception of a few comments that stayed with the issue and tried to avoid slandering someone else's character by implication.  

It's a blogher comment thread.  This is supposed to be fun.

Please cite your sources, ama de case, and I will take your argument more seriously.

That is not a personal attack.

That is a request that you back up your claims with data or else risk having your arguments ignored as irrelevant.

Sorry, it's been a busy day.

Okay, here are some ideas for reforming the insurance industry and their outrageous costs:

Financially reward (through tax incentives) those insurance companies who adopt a national standard of claims submission and data exchange.  We need to have a more consistent standard of administration with a form that is as easy to use as a 1040EZ.  Which is also a national standard form, I might add.  Take tax incentives away from insurance companies which do not comply.
Require that earnings from the insurance reserves back into the hands of consumers.  Either create an infrastructure to allow self-funding groups of individuals (with stop-loss insurance to cover costs over a certain claim limit) or legally require insurance companies to hold reserves on the behalf of groups and individuals with dividends paid back to those people.  This is not unlike a landlord being required to pay you interest on the deposit you made on your apartment if they hold it for a certain amount of time.
Require insurance companies to publish their adminsitrative costs per claim activity ratio.  Reward those companies who have the lowest administrative costs per claim activity.
Expand the current program available to doctors who spend a certain
amount of years as family practitioners where the government will
assume a certain portion of their medical school debt per year that they are working in family care.  (It's like serving in the Peace Corps, for doctors.)
Create initiatives that allow advanced nursing practitioners to assume some of the responsibilities that we require doctors to assume now in order to be reimbursed under insurance.
Take administration of medical claims completely out of the doctors' offices.  Allow patients that pay up front and then complete and turn in their own papework for reimbursement to get a deduction on doctors' office medical services.  (Although this creates less hassle for doctors, this obviously has problems for a lot of lower income patients.)  This has worked well for many dentists.
Require insurance companies to operate as not-for-profits, similar to the Kaiser Permanente model.  Although not perfect, these KP model attributes are especially effective:
KP's performance has been attributed to three practices: First, KP
places a strong emphasis on preventative care, reducing costs later on.
Second, its doctors are salaried rather than paid per service, which
removes any incentive for doctors to perform unnecessary procedures.
Thirdly, KP attempts to minimize the time patients spend in high-cost
hospitals by carefully planning their stay and by providing cares in
clinics. This practice results in cost savings for KP and greater
doctor attention to patients. A comparison to the UK's National Health Service ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Servi... ) found that patients spend 2-5 times as much time in NHS hospitals as compared to KP hospitals.

 These are just some of them.  Not all perfect, but it is doubtful that we will ever have a perfect health care system.

Sigh.

And I don't support that kind of thing, either.  If I recall, the credit included hybrid vehicles, too.

I disagree with a lot of what the current administration has done.  They were trying to keep every single business in the country from filing bankruptcy.  I think they should have stayed out of it.

Just because the taxes were that high in 1981 does not mean that Reagan made them so.  His administration wasn't in place until 1981.  One of the first things he did was cut taxes in 1981.  And he continued to cut taxes while he was in office.   

I do know what I'm talking about.  Furthermore, personal attacks do nothing to advance this "conversation."

Clinton said he cut taxes.  And on paper it looked like he did.  However, he also introduced some kind of mumbo-jumbo called "retroactive" taxes.  So over time, 10 years, the overall tax burden increased!

It was a republican congress that initiated the small business tax credit for SUVs and a republican president who increased the credit to up to $75,000 in 2004. 

This was intended to be an economic stimulus.

So yeah, that's been subsidized for a while but only for the most impracticle, gas guzzling vehicles. I'm sure all the small businesses who took advantage of the tax credit are really pleased with their low-efficiency vehicles now that gas is $4 a gallon.

Tacoma Mama ( http://www.tacomamama.com )

Incorrect, AmaDeCasa--

According to the Congressional Budget Office ( http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/53xx/doc5324/04-02-TaxR... ), taxes for middle America were highest in 1981.  I believe that was Reagan at 19.2%.  Under Clinton, the tax rates for the same incomes were anywhere from 15.2 - 17.3%.

So, you are incorrect, unless you were talking about an American President who was in office prior to 1979??

Please do your research before contributing to the conversation.  Thanks.

Cars are expensive, too.  It won't be too long before every is crying for the government to subsidize cars or gasoline. 

Most recently, Bush 43 has cut taxes for Americans.  Before him we had a democrat administration with a president who claimed to "feel our pain" and he raised taxes more than any other president in history.

The fact is that the top 20% of the population pays 80% of the taxes in this country.  That means that the bottom 80% of the population, people with very low incomes, pay only 20% of ALL taxes. What good does it do to the economy to cut the taxes of the lowest income bracket?  They're not paying taxes anyway.

If you really care and want to educate yourself rather than making baseless accusations about how republicans tax as opposed to democrats, then read this ( http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/08-13-Effe... ).

Melanie mentioned moral responsibility, not rights.  They are different. 

We have rights by virtue of the fact that we exist, and they are: life, freedom, and the freedom to pursue what makes us happy.  The thing about rights is that my rights end at exactly the point where yours begin.  Laws are created to ensure that no person infringes on another's rights.  

Moral responsibility, however, has to do with taking care of our neighbors -- something that the people in America have done for the last two hundred years.  They've done it well, gone above and beyond the call, and without complaint.  

plus whatever part of my taxes that are portioned to medical care.

For that I get EVERYTHING I need except for things like prescriptions and dental.

I get all the basics that my family need.

Our hospitals are not scary and third world...they are as state as the art as they can get.

We have one of the best Childrens Hosptials in the country....and you don't pay extra if your kid is in there!

This Libertarian thing sounds more like anarchy or living on the wild frontier than how a 'civilized' society would run.

I don't know how you can have a cohesive society without some sort of central management system...a government to handle all the basics.

Basically..you should have no public anything...no water, sewage, schools, power, etc...everything should be scraped together by the individual...or paid for by the individual...everything should be bought and sold....

Scary. 

Look for me at http://crunchycarpets.com or check out the ladies at www.wetcoastwomen.com ( http://www.wetcoastwomen.com )

Actually, Medicaid is not usually given to seniors.  It's given to the poorest of the poor.  Medicare, which is what you are actually were probably referring to, is for seniors mainly...and the disabled.  I'm quite happy with my Medicare.  It covers pretty much anything I need, and what it doesn't cover, my Medicaid covers.  That is, if the doctors take the Medicaid, and I don't blame the government for them being too lazy to take the Medicaid. 

Janet  + http://fuzzypinkslippers.com ( http://fuzzypinkslippers.com/ ) = love

http://urban-sunrise.net ( http://urban-sunrise.net/ ) - a blog for 18-25 year olds

You know it would be nice if we could all afford to take care of our own medical bills, but we don't live in that kind of world.  Medical expenses are EXPENSIVE.  One medication that I'm on costs at least $400 a month.  My disability check brings in just that much money.  I have other medications I'm on, which also costs just as much.  Am I supposed to pick and choose what medicines I'm supposed to take?  Or how about just not take any of it and end up in an institution where the government HAS TO take care of me?  Those are my alternatives without having insurance subsidized by the government.  I can't just go out and work.  As for my parents footing the bill, they're on disability too.  And not all of my great and wonderful family feels that it is necessary to help us out because they think that we should basically get up and go to work, ignoring the fact that we can't work.

It's easy to sit back and say that everyone should take care of themselves when you don't have to live a life where you can't just take care of yourself. 

Janet  + http://fuzzypinkslippers.com ( http://fuzzypinkslippers.com/ ) = love

http://urban-sunrise.net ( http://urban-sunrise.net/ ) - a blog for 18-25 year olds

There are more moderate solutions.

It doesn't have to be "free market, everyone for themselves, screw the rest of you!"   Nor does it have to be "Big Brother, you'll only receive medical treatment when we tell you that you can".

Let me introduce you to Heath Care/Insurance Administration 101:

The free market has failed when it comes to the health care system.  Period.  There are no advantages to insurance companies for becoming more efficient in managing their adminstrative fees, in passing along the interest they make on massive reserves** back to the consumer, or in finding ways to cut costs that DON'T involve denying care.  None.  Competition is a farce because most insurance companies operate geographically which lessens competition.
(** part of the insurance premium that you pay each month goes to something called the "reserves".  The reserves are a 3-4 month estimate of what the insurance company pays out in claims.  They keep these so that, if you switch medical plans, they can pay out the claims that you incurred while you were on their plan but submitted AFTER you left the plan.  Collectively, the reserves are millions and millions of dollars.  Which the insurance companies invest, make interest and dividends off of, and then pocket as profit.  So, they make lots of money off of your money which you do not see as cost savings in premiums.)
Adminstration of health care claims is woefully inefficient and, therefore, very costly.  VERY costly.  Because there are no standards for forms and processes, doctor's offices have to figure out and coordinate a new set of standards and processes for each set of insurance companies that they accept on behalf of patients.  Plus, each insurer has its own set of complicated proprietary software for submitting claims and receiving payments electronically.  This leads to doctors' offices not being able to use just one claims administrator, but many.  All of whom need to be trained on the various systems and processes and forms which is wasteful in money and time.  These costs are passed along to the patient or to the insurance company.  The insurance company passes them along to the folks who pay the premiums.
Many of the most competent doctors are leaving family practice and becoming specialists.  Why?  They hate dealing with the complexity of insurers and managed care and the requirements that they treat patients like an assembly line.  In order for doctors to even meet their own expenses (not even make a profit), some are given maximum meeting times for being with a patient.  Like, you have only 12 minutes to meet with the patient.  It's demoralizing for the patient AND the doctor and does not contribute to quality care.  Instead of fighting the system, many doctors just quit and become specialists where they can focus on a few symptoms and treatments with less hassle.  And frequently, more ability to make a living. This is decreasing competition within the field of available doctors, not increasing it.
I'm not saying that I have all of the answers.  But there ARE ways that health care funding can be restructered to benefit everyone.  Well, except for the insurance companies.  Who will fight any changes tooth and nail.

More in a sec about specific ideas.  Need to get some work done over here.  You know me, stealing from the rich, giving to the poor, Robin Hood, yadda, yadda...

Melanie, society is already dictating moral choices for you and has throughout the ages.

Can you go out and run down a kid with your car? No, because society has deemed such to be "murder" and enacted laws against it.

Can you commit fraud, or embezzle money from your employer? No, because society has deemed such to be "theft" and enacted laws against it.

Can you say, "I don't want to pay taxes, because I don't like where the money is going?" This one has been the cornerstone of the libertarian movement. Again, society has deemed such to be illegal, and rightfully so: if you are a member of a society, you have to live in such a way that you are not a detriment to the society. This includes paying your fair share of infrastructure that allows the society to exist.

Society cannot force you to be a caring, empathetic individual--only you can do that. But society can work to ensure that your actions don't cause harm to others. More importantly, to ensure that society functions, and doesn't break down into chaos, and anarchy. 

At one time each person could go off and be the king or queen of their own kingdom, but when the population of this planet reached a billion, we lost that capability. People made a choice to have an increasing number of kids. Now, the days of the lone maverick, doing their own thing and to hell with society are over, and gone.

This is a fact, not an emotional statement.

"Many posts are being made regarding our moral obligations to provide
health care to suffering Americans.  What about cancer?  What about
curable disease? Etc.  And in every case, the poster feels that
government should provide these services."

Actually that's not what I'm saying when I'm saying I'm for universal health. 

A universal health system is one in which each citizen is guaranteed the right to basic health care. Such right will be granted based on their participation in some health care insurance pool. I happen to believe in a universal pool, and eliminating the insurance companies from the basic health care plan (they can provide extended benefits, similiar to the Australian plan), but others believe we should keep the private carriers and offer a government-managed pool, whereby people could purchase their insurance. The cost within the pool would be reasonable--not the 500 to 1000 or more a month people are paying now. This would act as incentive to the private carriers to keep their premiums down, too.

In addition to the pool, there would also be a subsidy for those who cannot afford to pay the premiums. There are already subsidies for lower income folks built into our tax systems, so this concept is not unusual. 

Now, I believe we need to have mandatory participation, because we need the premiums of all participants, not just the older or those more likely to need it. Sure the 23 year old may not need the coverage now, but they will someday -- mandatory coverage insures that people have access to the health care when they need it.

To go along with this, we also need to ensure that employers pay their fair percentage, either by providing health care options for their employees, or paying a percentage to the government. This isn't unusual, they contribute an employer share for social security.

In addition, we do need some reforms. The pharmaceutical companies overcharge Americans and this has to stop.  We need one plan of what's covered, mandatory, and so on, not the different plan for each heath care provider in each state. We need a federal health care system to cut costs and aid in communication. 

I also believe that the government should manage the malpractice insurance, because insurance companies charge more premiums when their investments don't return as much of a profit, but people assume the increased premium amount is because of larger numbers of malpractice claims. In actually, there hasn't been an increase in malpractice claims. 

If we weren't worried about malpractice returning a profit, only being self-sustaining, we could control this particlar cost. The only way to do that is nationalize malpractice coverage.

Returning to subsidizing those who cannot pay the health care premiums. Right now, they account for most ER traffic, and by the time they do see doctors, whatever health item is impacting on them is critical, and the costs for caring for them is much higher. It makes more economical sense to provide access to basic health care and eliminate the "ER as doctor's office". It wil most likely cost us less over time to provide the subsidy than to provide the critical care. 

Now, in none of this are we asking the "government to take care of us". We, as a society are working towards a group health care plan that covers everyone. We, as a society, are doing so not only because we feel it is the "right" thing to do, but it's actually the most economical, and cost effective way of providing health care. 

Now, returning to your "save the world" -- I believe that basic health care should be a right for every human on the planet. Right now, though, we're only talking about the US as a society coming together to make a sound, economic decision going into the future.  The crippled system we have now is not working. We shouldn't so afraid of change that we don't fix a broken system.

Health care is not a right. See Bernoulli's argument above.

What it boils down to is that one side wants to determine my moral responsibility and I want to retain that right for myself. Just because one thinks I *should* think or act a certain way and I do not, does not mean it should be mandated by government. One may not be able to wrap one's head around my POV, but that doesn't make my POV wrong or immoral. Why? Because no one gets to decide whether I'm moral. One can judge, but one cannot decide.

Melanie
Blogging Basics 101 ( http://www.bloggingbasics101.com )
Bloggy Giveaways ( http://www.bloggygiveaways.com )
Don't Try This at Home ( http://www.donttryit.com )

Many posts are being made regarding our moral obligations to provide health care to suffering Americans.  What about cancer?  What about curable disease? Etc.  And in every case, the poster feels that government should provide these services.

I posit that this argument does not address the issue.  I'll illustrate by expanding the arguments I have heard.  What about people that are NOT American?  There are 6 billion people on this planet, who helps them?  Why should they die in Rwanda or Nigeria?   Is it THEIR fault that they weren't born Canadian or American or British?  How could you be so greedy and selfish to NOT want to help them live.  That is Dickensian and heartless and cruel to be bound by your own borders.  If you have extra money in your account for a large screen tv or cable for that matter, then send it overseas and help those that are dying every day.  Why should a stranger in Rwanda have less worth than one in the US?

 No?  Your moral obligation doesn't extend beyond our borders? Or you are already sponsoring a child, on your own, without the government telling you to do so?  Come on people. If you had more of your paycheck than you could invest more wisely than the federal government and actually help these individuals, American or other. Am I of the priviledged class? No, I grew up below the American poverty level, I worked 3-5 jobs to educate myself, one of my kids is a cancer survivor.  It is condescending to think that others feel I'm unable to care for myself and guess what?  If I had more money from my paychecks in the past, maybe I could have made ends meet with 2-4 jobs.

 Government is not responsible for moral issues.  YOU are.  Take care of yourselves and keep what YOU earn and let ME decide how I will spend my own money.

Hi folks - I am new here, so be gentle.....

I think the issues with UHC are many and varied, and sometimes the issues get mixed up, and some of the issues cause OTHER issues.  I will use some examples I am familiar with, for clarity.

Here are a couple of issues, and problems, with UHC, as I see it.

 1) One of the reasons health care in this country costs so much is that the government/insurance (and the trial lawyers -- and before anyone flames me for that, I am a trial lawyer, so I do know something of what I speak) have already gotten involved.  For example, an obstetrician in this country has to pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $100,000.00 per year in malpractice insurance. Read that number again.  That money is in addition to paying the nurses, and the rent, and the equipment, etc.  He or she HAS to do that in order to deliver babies.  That cost gets passed to the patients.  It has to.

 Additionally, the cost of doing business with insurance companies in general (not malpractice, just regular health insurance companies) is costly for doctors.  Here is an example.  Medicare pays my father (who is in general practice in a small town, with a hefty geriatric practice) approximately $10-$15 per office visit.  And that doesn't cover my dad's costs.  So, every time he sees a Medicare patient, he is LOSING money.  Many health insurance companies work the same way.  So doctors have to increase the volume of business in order to make up for it, and patient care gets lost.  Well, you say, why doesn't he just charge people "who can pay" more.  THAT is a longer answer...ask me later.  Primarily it is because he can't.  Not legally.  Not for anyone who is on Medicare (which is anyone over 65 or 70, I can't remember.)

This issue leads to my second issue, HMOs, which are a response to the above.

1) HMOs are the response of some doctors and some companies to the problem mentioned above.  And, they do solve that problem, by limiting choice.  For some people this doesn't matter.  But for others, having a nationalized HMO is frightening.  I want to be able to choose my health care providers.  It is bad enough that my HSA also has a PPO attached to it, and if I pick a "preferred provider", I get a break.  The kicker is the reason a provider is "preferred".  It sounds like they are better.  They are not, necessarily.  They are preferred only because they have agreed to take the price that insurance companies are willing to pay.  And therefore, they pass the cost onto people with non-restrictive insurance, or those with self-pay.

 And so you are stuck, if you want choice.  You are stuck because you already pay for health insurance (either  you do, from your paycheck, or your employer does, and you pay for it indirectly because your employer pays you less so that he can cover your "benefits") AND you have to pay extra if you want the doctor you want.  

 OK, those are only two issues that affect the health care issue.  I don't see how UHC is going to make those problems disappear.  They will only make them worse.  And THAT is why I don't want the feds more involved in health care.  They will just make the situation worse.  Government doesn't do things well when it engages in the private lives of people.

 We all believe that people should be able to get their health needs taken care of.  Liberals think Government is the way to do that, conservatives think that the private sector is better able to handle it.  Let's not assume bad motives to either group of people.

Because America was the ONLY country to pay to rebuild after WWII. (?)

And you know what the funny thing is? Even after all that money, NOLA is still not rebuilt. I guess that goes more to ineptitude than anything.

Visit my blogs at ThreeSeven ( http://www.threeseven.ca ) (all that's irrelevant and amusing) and
ecochick ( http://www.ecochick.ca ) (all that's green, cool and Canadian).

Ok, so they rely on their church, community and family for help. Ignoring for the moment those who have no such support group, let's say that these groups decide to help people with medical bills. In this utopia you speak of, churches, communities and families are all flush and donations are flowing. People are being saved. So much money is coming in that the community organizers decide they need process and efficiency, so they establish a board to help administer the funds, to get better deals with HMOs or hospitals, to work with individuals to manage medical care, to get more donations to help. It's taking so much of people's time that they find they have to start paying individuals to administer the fund. Hmm. Isn't that something like.. a government? 

Visit my blogs at ThreeSeven ( http://www.threeseven.ca ) (all that's irrelevant and amusing) and
ecochick ( http://www.ecochick.ca ) (all that's green, cool and Canadian).

And those whom it does support must have nothing left. There is a huge gap between middle-income/unable to afford needed services and "nothing left."

Therefore, yes, an equitable universal plan would be better. Have you any experience with Medicaid? Have you needed it or used it, for the time that it will still be left?

The party records prove what I need not re: taxes.

Life is a right.

Health care is not. 

I only mentioned Hillary because she is part of the history of this universal health care discussion in America.  It's not a talking point. 

By your standard. Not by mine, and not by a lot of people like me. Frankly, I can't understand a person who would be complacent about someone dying in this country over something that could be easily cured if they only had the proper health care.

I cannot get into the head of someone who could feel this way. Please dont say your pro-life, too, because the contradiction would cause this page to implode. 

Why is it that you want to be self-reliant about everything in your life EXCEPT health care? 

Nope, don't want that.  Don't want to be self sufficient.  I want public education, I want clean water, I want clean air, I want safe food, I want roads and public transportation.  And I don't want it as a "handout" or a restriction on my liberty, but rather as the product of the taxes we agree to pay as members of a society.  I want the things that other industrialized nations have, because with our GDP we really ought to be able to expect that.  I'm OK with these things, because they make my life better.  They make your life better.  They allow us to be here, today, having this relatively pointless argument.  

You don't know that universal health care would mean the end of physician choice.  Really, you don't.    Also, Hillary Clinton is not the democratic nominee and we are not actually talking about her plan.  So time to drop that talking point.

Tacoma Mama ( http://www.tacomamama.com )

Health care is not a right.

I agree with Melanie that it is not the government's responsibility. I agree that there should be charity and family help by choice. This country was built on a free market economy and when we take choice away from the people you take away freedom itself. Yes, I absolutely agree that the system is flawed but I have not seen a proposal that would work. I'd rather stay with the flaws that we have then have to follow an unproven plan.

This may add a new element of crazy to this discussion but if so many areas and states weren't required to give health care to anyone that walked through the door (read illegals, on purpose) our health care system might not be in the position that it is.

"In America, we have Medicare for the poor, the S-CHIP program specifically for poor children, and Medicaid for senior citizens."

Don't you mean we have Medicare for those over a certain age, and Medicaid is an assistance program for lower income folks?

Unfortunately, Medicaid is also impacted heavily by state government decisions. For instance, we lost a massive amount of Federal matching funds in our state (Missouri) because of our putz of a governor deciding he also doesn't believe in an social system for health care, and mucked around with it so badly that we're virtually uncovered now.

(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story...

He's so disliked, he didn't even try to run for a second term.

We can't depend on states to do the right thing, because all citizens of this country should have equal access to basic health care. 

And that's what this argument is really boiling down to: there are those in this comment thread who believe we should all have access to basic health care, and those who believe people don't have this right, and if people die because they don't have access to health care, too bad. So sad. Not their problem.

You said that republicans get taxes "more from the people who have less."

I beg to differ.  You're going to have to prove that one. 

The government already does its part to care for the senior citizens -- medicaid.  If you're not happy with medicaid for your parents, do you really think a universal plan will be better?  

It sounds more like you have to pay TWICE.  You pay your taxes and you have to pay for insurance to get your "extra" benefits.  That's ridiculous.

Government involvement only mucks things up and liberty dies. 

The thing is, I am not concerned with the manner in which foreign governments handle health care.  It is irrelevant to this argument because whatever politician determines the US' universal health care plan (if there is one), it will be tailored to this country and not specifically patterned after another's.

In America, we have Medicare for the poor, the S-CHIP program specifically for poor children, and Medicaid for senior citizens.  Not to mention various state and local government programs that do their part to take care of the underprivileged.  Those who are truly IN NEED are taken care of. 

Have you ever heard of a thing called "Medicare"? Sure, it has its problems, but it also provides most of the health coverage for every adult in this country over a certain age. It is not a charity, nor does it provide health services. It is a health insurance system managed by the government and paid for by employee taxes. Which is what we're looking for in a universal health system. Heck, Obama and Clinton don't even want a complete goverment plan -- just a pool available for people to get insurance from, in addition to the private companies. And a minimum standard: the insurance has to be as good as what Congress gets. No more, no less. Oh, and no one can be turned away.

Now, I'm assuming from your comment that you would consider such a plan and a pool to be the most awful thing that could happen in this country, and that's your right.  However, your mention of the Veterans Administration is completely out of the park. The Veterans Administration is an arm of the government that provides numerous services for veterans, including veteran's hospitals and Veteran's care. There's a Veterans hospital that's not far from me that's actually considered pretty good. Not perfect, but that's primarily because their funding keeps getting cut.

(Fancy. it seems to get cut more under a Republican administration than a Democratic one.  You would think those who want to play war would at least pay the bill for the consequences.)

Still, a recent RAND study found that veterans typically receive better care from the VA health care system than the patients would receive in private care (http://www.research.va.gov/news/press_releases/qua...

So now, what were you saying?

Just because something has been done badly doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be done.

I'm an Australian.  We have universal health care as part of a mixed system, and it is not without it's problems but it works pretty well.  There's an explanation here:

http://www.medhunters.com/articles/healthcareInAus...

What's interesting?  It costs us less per GDP, and less per capita than the American system.  70% is government funded, with the rest from private insurance or private payment.

There are compelling economic reasons for a government to implement universal healthcare, around lost work time due to illness, bankruptcy and loan defaulting, costst to businesses... (wikepedia hs some references).

But I would have thought that, as a libertarian, a system with less paperwork, less middlemen and requiring less taxes would be a good thing?

oh, and btw, most countries with universal health care (australia included) still have health insurance for extra benefits.  so you still get to choose.

Any government, republican or democrat, will take money in taxes - and in a republican government, more from the people who have less. So to view us as separate from government is just...not accurate.

I want the same kind of health care for my parents as John McCain will get to see himself to death. It'll never be as good, I'm sure, but if they (a veteran and a 40-year government employee) could get it from his shop or anyone else's, I'll take it.

There were no MRI's or experimental cancer treatments on the prairie, and we are no longer dickering over who has enough cattle. It's a different ballgame and the old arguments don't hold.

And forget "not caring about the children" - in our aging population, we'd all best be concerned with caring about the old people, a population completely ignored by private-pay health care. When it's all of us (and our parents) the tune will be way different.

Laurie

"If you guys want the government to foot the bill for your doctor
visits, tell you when to see your doctor, tell you which doctor you
will see and when, and dictate which remedies you are going to take,
then, by all means, vote for the democrat candidate."

Did you actually read anything about Canadian or the UK version of healthcare..or any of the European nations that do this?

Do I have an HMO telling me who my doc is?  No.

I look up a doc, research them and hope they are taking patients...no problems so far.

Same for peds for the kids etc.

Seriously...why is a private insurance company ok to dictate who and what care you get but not a gov't body?

Is your government THAT crappy that you can't trust them at all...if so you have more problems than are being discussed all over the blog world ...perhaps a revolution IS needed.

ook for me at http://crunchycarpets.com or check out the ladies at www.wetcoastwomen.com ( http://www.wetcoastwomen.com )

I merely meant that the conversation had gone off topic to include extraneous, irrelevant arguments. 

is interesting...do the reservations have good medical care or are they all on their own too?

Look for me at http://crunchycarpets.com or check out the ladies at www.wetcoastwomen.com ( http://www.wetcoastwomen.com )

Veterans Administration,

How well has the government handled health care for our Veteran's?

No thanks.

:-)

It is not the responsibility of government to make sure that its citizens have health care. 

Your anecdotes are moving.  We all have a sob story to share.  That does not mean that the solution lies in government growth to take up the slack. 

Government is never meant to be your momma nor your savior.  The Constitution spells out the purpose of our government.  Period.  Health care isn't mentioned.  It matters not that Thomas Jefferson did not know about health care companies, etc. because the principles behind that document are the same regardless of the issue.  It boils down to choice and freedom.  When the government gets involved, choice and freedom are taken away from people.  

Why is it that you want to be self-reliant about everything in your life EXCEPT health care?  Do you want "free" health care for everyone even if the government program requires all citizens with insurance to give up their personal insurance plan and join a program administered by the government?

Do you really think that will be better for your family?  Is your current coverage so bad? 

Sure, you say, "Oh, those poor children and families need health care."  Do you think the government is going to give all the "poor" health care and let you keep your own plan?  Wake up!  The plan that Hillary Clinton has proposed will do just that -- everybody is in.  If the government takes over (even in Obama's plan), it's taking over your health care, too.  And if you think the democrats won't, then you're living in a dream world.  When the government gets involved all of the prices for care will go through the roof because our current health care companies won't be able to compete (there will still be a free-market economy), and we'll be forced into the government system.  Nightmare.

The beautiful thing about America is that we can be educated about the issues and elect those we think best represent our interests.  If you guys want the government to foot the bill for your doctor visits, tell you when to see your doctor, tell you which doctor you will see and when, and dictate which remedies you are going to take, then, by all means, vote for the democrat candidate. How are you going to feel when you have to sit and watch your child suffer because your number in the health care lottery doesn't come up for another 18 months?  Where will you go?  To those wretched Christians and their private hospitals (that is, if they survive the government smack down)?

I agree with Melanie.  Thanks, but no thanks, to the Nanny State.

NOLA is one of my favorite cities in this great land of ours.

Did you know that our government spent more on trying to help NOLA after Katrina than it took for us to rebuild 16 countries after WWII? Yes, that is adjusted for inflation. In other words, we were able to rebuild those 16 countries after WWII for less than we spent on trying to help Katrina victims. At what point do we say Enough?

Melanie
Blogging Basics 101 ( http://www.bloggingbasics101.com )
Bloggy Giveaways ( http://www.bloggygiveaways.com )
Don't Try This at Home ( http://www.donttryit.com )

Or Flint Michigan?  Or any other city/town in America where the need far outweighs the ability of the churches, charities, and wealthy benefactors in the local area to help? And what happens when people are dependent upon churches for their survival?  Things get pretty unhappy in libertarian land.

Should we leave it all up to Save the Children and World Vision?  (Who are already actually working in some areas of the US)    I think that would be a very sad outcome.  I am not willing to allow my country to fall further into poverty and decline, I want to fight for our collective well being.

Tacoma Mama ( http://www.tacomamama.com )

 who experience such things without insurance or the safety net of a family with deep pockets.  I suppose you don't? Or the fact that you might empathize with them is completely irrelevant, we should just trust in the kindness of strangers to help them? Or let them spend down all of their assets/savings so they can go on medicare?  (Assuming they can do so without a divorce)  

Or we should all step into our logic machines and spit out a nation of people who will scrimp and save to afford high deductible plans and the accompanying savings account, because they have the foresight to recognize they may be in this position?  And insurance companies will accept them automatically regardless of pre-existing condition, without government intervention, because the free market will dictate it?   Everyone should work for a large mega-corporation that will pay for it?  (sorry entrepeneurs)  I think there's a lot of emotional, magical thinking in there.

I am glad that your family had insurance/family that could help. Not everyone is in that position and relying on the Magical Free Market to fix it has demonstrably not worked, and will continue to not work.

Tacoma Mama ( http://www.tacomamama.com )

I won't come between you and Tacoma Mama, but you referenced me and my argument so I will respond to that. Actually, I'm going a little off-topic, and focusing on your liberal and emotional argument comment, but I'm hoping you won't mind.

You're equating an anecdotal response to being a purely emotional response, and then dismissing it as invalid. I'm wondering if you apply this generally, or only against liberals? I know of two politicians who probably agree with you about no unversal health care, who base almost their entire argument on why they should be elected on their personal experiences. One talks all too frequently about being some kind of "Hockey Mom", and therefore "one of us". The other, well, does the initials POW come to mind?

So, I'm curious, Melanie, do you find McCain and  Palin's argument for electing them to be overly emotional, too? 

It bothers me that in any democratic nation...republic or not..that charities and churches are still needed.

It bothers me that hospitals do lotteries to buy MRI's.

It bothers me that we need charities to help our own people....

It should be necessary.

We should not have people so low on the economic scale in our countries that  they need food banks and shelters.

Why do we have homeless people?

Are we really so shallow to blame the individual on their plight?

Should not a wealthy country be able to spread that wealth a little bit.  Enough to make sure at least the BASICS of life are met?

If not..how can we call ourselves GREAT?  Specially compared to other nations..nations America many times feels the need to influence and change.

Look for me at http://crunchycarpets.com or check out the ladies at www.wetcoastwomen.com ( http://www.wetcoastwomen.com )

Or they could look to their church, family, and community for help. I'm not saying these people don't deserve help. I'm saying it's not the government's responsibility.

Melanie
Blogging Basics 101 ( http://www.bloggingbasics101.com )
Bloggy Giveaways ( http://www.bloggygiveaways.com )
Don't Try This at Home ( http://www.donttryit.com )