Whatever happened to getting an education and making something of ones self so a good job with health insurance benefits can be obtained? Whatever happened to taking care of one's own family members without asking for help from the government? All we are doing by providing government sponsored healtchare is making it even easier for people, who don't want to get an education and a good job, to lay around knowing that yet another part of their daily lives will be provided for by the government. The fact is the government can't afford to hand out anymore welfare, whether it be in the form of free healthcare or a paycheck once a month. We need to all remember that WE are the government and it is time for us to say no to these kinds of ideas and mindless spending.

Interesting series/discussions regarding Canada's health care system over at the New York Times: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/200... and
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/200...
For reference/information only - not because I am saying this is the kind of system the US should have...

And one more thing, what we currently have is a "hybrid" health care system. A system that is going to be changed into....a bigger hybrid system?

Oh yes, by all means keep publishing things about Canada's health care system.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3...

"The ugly truth."

Thank you globalgal for your informative post..

Do not quit posting because that is what the proponents of “status quo”, want you to do.

The one sided gloom and doom stories about the healthcare plans of Canada or the United Kingdom are irreverent because Congress is not even considering a single payer Universal Healthcare Plan. At best, the final product will be more of a hybrid plan…. The House of Represenatives won't bring up a universal healthcare plan but the final decision will rest with the Senate Finance Committee and they are not even considering it.

President Barack Obama has repeated several times “If you like the Health Insurance you have, by all means kept it but your premiums will be lower.”…. The public option is being negotiated.
The public option will be held as leverage to keep the high-rise in cost of insurance down.. It might not be included in this bill but will be held as a legislative threat, just like Medicare part D, did against the drug companies.

This is an excerpt from the WSJ about Britain's universal health care.

The last six months of life are a particularly difficult moral issue because that is when most health-care spending occurs. But who would you rather have making decisions about whether a treatment is worth the price -- the combination of you, your doctor and a private insurer, or a government board that cuts everyone off at $22,000?

One virtue of a private system is that competition allows choice and experimentation. To take an example from one of our recent editorials, Medicare today refuses to reimburse for the new, less invasive preventive treatment known as a virtual colonoscopy, but such private insurers as Cigna and United Healthcare do. As clinical evidence accumulates on the virtual colonoscopy, doctors and insurers will be able to adjust their practices accordingly. NICE merely issues orders, and patients have little recourse.

This has medical consequences. The Concord study published in 2008 showed that cancer survival rates in Britain are among the worst in Europe. Five-year survival rates among U.S. cancer patients are also significantly higher than in Europe: 84% vs. 73% for breast cancer, 92% vs. 57% for prostate cancer. While there is more than one reason for this difference, surely one is medical innovation and the greater U.S. willingness to reimburse for it.

The NICE precedent also undercuts the Obama Administration's argument that vast health savings can be gleaned simply by automating health records or squeezing out "waste." Britain has tried all of that but ultimately has concluded that it can only rein in costs by limiting care. The logic of a health-care system dominated by government is that it always ends up with some version of a NICE board that makes these life-or-death treatment decisions. The Administration's new Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research currently lacks the authority of NICE. But over time, if the Obama plan passes and taxpayer costs inevitably soar, it could quickly gain it.

Mr. Obama and Democrats claim they can expand subsidies for tens of millions of Americans, while saving money and improving the quality of care. It can't possibly be done. The inevitable result of their plan will be some version of a NICE board that will tell millions of Americans that they are too young, or too old, or too sick to be worth paying to care for.

I am almost afraid to post something here, but I feel compelled. I worked as a nurse's aid and Registered Nurse in Victoria for 3 years. I then moved to Toronto, Canada and worked as a Registered Nurse in an inner-city hospital for 3 years, so I feel that I have a pretty good idea what both systems are like. (Clarification: I am a US citizen!) I won't go into the details, perhaps I will do that in a blog post, but I can honestly say that I loved the system in place in Ontario. My patients received excellent care in a state-of-the-art facility with devoted interns, residents, physicians, nurses and other staff. In almost every sense it was identical to my experience in Texas, except of course, the way in which it was all funded. I myself received excellent preventive healthcare with a local g.p. I paid extra each month (about $50 I think... but I honestly don't remember) for both me and my husband for prescription medicine/dental insurance coverage. My salary was comparable to the salary I received in Victoria.

This is not to say that this system would work in the US. I will come out of the closet to say that I fully support a universal health care plan, or even a two-tier system like Spain's (where I also lived, but did not work), but I don't think it will happen. I don't think that pointing out the faults (even the myths) of Canada's system is a valid argument against a national health insurance system/universal health care system/etc. for the US, however, as Canada's system works well for Canada and I think it could work well for Americans, but unfortunately, it just doesn't jive with our dislike of big government or our belief that health care is not a basic right. Just my two cents.

I will blog about my nursing experiences in both the US & Canada in the future. And China's system as well, because if you don't have cash in hand, they'll let you bleed to death in the ER waiting area. No joke, you have to pay for service before they even touch you.

I'm sorry...not RU's post...atcoffeys post. I agree with RU.

And as my mom always says...."nobody said life was fair".

I'm with RU, your post about us thoughtless, unappreciative middle class, is akin to biting the hand that feeds you. I see lots of "poor" in nicer cars, more "toys" & gadgets than I have. Maybe, just maybe, the poor should sit back & figure out how to get themselves out of the hole they find themselves in, instead of expecting the rest of us to do it for them. If there are no consequences then actions never change.

I guess I am not making myself understood. My fault, my bad. I'm sorry. I do not mean to cast aspersions on the work ethic of the middle class. I know people work hard. I think what I find objectionable about the tenor and tone of the discussion is this assumption that everyone who receives gov't assistance is somehow a deadbeat and does not deserve the help. I know that some don't deserve the help. I'm around a lot of poor people in my ministry. I see a lot of things. And I know a lot of poor people who have worked hard all their lives and for various reasons just can't make it. They aren't trying to keep their heads above water, they're trying to hold their breath in the hope they can get their head above water.

So, I'm done.

To all,

I am not advocating any particular plan--gov't or otherwise. What I am advocating is for us to realize that not everyone has access to all the niceties that middle class folks take for granted and that those folks are not de facto dead beats because of it.

Secondly, healthcare is already being rationed on the basis of ability to pay. No insurance or vast sums of money no treatment. The insurance companies are telling you already what they will or will not cover--they decide based on the nature of your policy--how much money you are spending with them--what they will or will not cover.

And finally, it is Darwinistic in the extreme to say that healthcare is a privilege rather than a right. I hear a lot talk about how much it is going to cost but no one seems to be willing to refute the assertion. If we are willing to say that ALL people are created in God's image, then they must have an intrinsic baseline value--irregardless of their irresponsible behavior. So then are we or are we not our brother's keeper? Cain answered no.

Texasmom, you should not feel bad for thinking the way you do. When my hubby was "self employed" & I wasn't working, we purchased a catastrophic health care plan that only cost $200 a month for the both of us. That is basically the cost of a cell phone plan, which everyone seems to have. People often don't think they need health insurance until they need it & then it's too late. Some people don't exactly have their priorities straight either & would rather pay $600 a month for a luxury car than bother with the intangibles.

Mike, as far as the people who are on Medicaid & food stamps driving nice cars, it is true. The profession I am in I used to see it on a daily basis. Cars, purses, clothes, jewelry butno $$ to buy meds for their 6 kids or put food in their mouths. Sad that people would rather keep up their appearances on the government dole instead of taking care of whats most important, the kids they brought into this world.

Mike, it may be a nationwide problem, but the last time I checked, Canada was not in our nation. They are their own seperate country, with their own f'd up healthcare system. Like I said, if I wanted to be Canadian, I'd move there. I don't butt into their issues, they need to NOT have a voice in ours.

Cheap shot? Maybe, but what you are advocating will have some very unpleasant consequences for millions of people and affect future generations for many years. I did not call you a socialist, I reserve that title exclusively for another person.

Rollingstone,

That was a cheap shot. I've been with good number of folks who died under the current scheme and I'm sure I will be with lots more.

But once again, y'all are missing the point. Rationing is already under way--unless you are indigent, no insurance no treatment. And folks are already telling you what will and will not be covered--the insurance companies.

To recognize these these two points does not make one a socialist.

The Fraser Institute study compared the mortality rate (percent) for bypass surgery in the USA and Ontario for 2003 and 2004.

In 2003 the rate was 3.22 and 3.60 for the USA and Ontario respectively.

In 2004 the rates were 2.84 and 4.00 respectively.
Ontario had a significant increase in morality year over year while the USA had a significant decline.

If we go to universal health care and more people die as a result will you be there to pray for them Mr. Coffey ?

Personally I think that once the government gets their tentacles into just about anything, that they will screw it up.

Here are a few things to think about:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/07...

We should be looking at something that decreases the roll of government while also increases competition. Getting the govt. out would help stabilize the prices. Inserting competition would will eventually drive the prices down and ensures that innovation continues.

The only logical conclusion to "universal healthcare" is rationing.

I don't think anyone would want a government official of any kind dictating what, if any, service they would receive.

Would you? Honestly?

atcoffey,

Maybe the government should fix the medicare system, and stay out of healthcare insurance. I'm just not willing to give up my healthcare coverge that I have invested the last 30 yrs in, I have worked to hard to see it go a way. I know this President and do not see eye to eye on this issue. Government run healthcare is not the answer, of course that is my opinion.

Victore,

I will not dispute with you about Lonestar card holders and 60k BMW's. I have heard similar tales for most of the last thirty years--the cars are different but the story isn't. However, I did spend 10 1/2 years working as a full time cashier for HEB and later Skaggs alpha beta in Fort Worth while putting myself through college and seminary. Back when I was working the program was called "food stamps" and occasionally I would have folks come through who were driving really nice cars, or at least better than mine--which back then was an un-airconditioned Pinto--but in 10 1/2 years of full time retail grocery employment I can say that in my experience the abuse was greatly exaggerated. And let me add that most of the folks I know that use Lonestar and medicaid are not abusers. I agree that there are abusers, but I think the proportion is probably exaggerated.

And I have actually been there for lots of folks for whom medicaid paid the birth. Some deserved the help, some didn't. Abuse will not be stamped out this side of Heaven--and, Jesus tells us, neither will poverty.

And by the way I'm a taxpayer too and don't like my money being wasted. But, if we neglect the human assets of our nation, then we will be up the crick sooner than we might imagine.

Times have changed….. I remember hearing that fable back in the 1980s, then it was a 1980 Cadillac pulling out of a grocery store, a couple of years ago it was a 2007 Hummer, not that person has a $60,000 BMW…. What a country.

Atcoffey,

A young woman carries a baby has no spouse, medicare pays for the birth, and all the trimmings to go with it. The drunk, doper deadbeat goes the ER will not be refused care, it's all on the tax payers dime. These devices are in place right now. The state of Texas has the Lonestar program for those folks that are out of work or what ever event that brought them hardship, again it's all on the tax payers dime. Government run healthcare is not the answer. Their will always be freeloaders out there to take advantage of the system, the lone star program, I have seen folks that are driving 60k BMW's go into a store and pull out the lonestar card, and south Texas is the worst for this kind of stuff. I'm all for giving a helping hand, but one must help one self first.

Mike,

I knew you could be funny!!
I' am retired as well and love every minute of it.

Victore,

I understand about responsibility. I understand about choice and free will. But my point really boils down to this: Either people--who Scripture tells us are ALL created in God's image--ALL possess a baseline intrinsic value--in spite of their achievements or lack thereof, or not. If not, if they really aren't created in God's image, then let's make everything--in this case healthcare--about one's worthiness and value to society. You're a drunk, doper, deadbeat, etc.--no healthcare for you! You don't achieve to a high enough level economically--no healthcare for you! But if we are going live by this survival of the fittest mentality, let's get real and call it what is--Social Darwinism.

See that's what Rush and his fellow radio travelers won't do. They talk about YOU losing YOUR choice, but they won't tell you about the poor slob who is doing the best he can but just can't afford insurance, or God Forbid has a pre-existing condition and experiences a lapse in coverage--he's the one who has no real choice.

In that situation who's supposed to take up the slack? The insurance companies? I don't think they are so inclined. Because insurance is not about taking care of your needs--no matter what their commercials say--its about making money--LOTS OF MONEY. Do them your need for healthcare IS a commodity. And while I am ranting about insurance, unless a person has enough money to avoid insurance and pay out of pocket, the insurance company is deciding what care you do or don't get--just like you are afraid the government will do.

Texasmom, I agree that you’re not greedy or mean spirited but would you trade places with that young lady?

I understand the hostile feelings toward the poor but shouldn’t we judge on a case by case basis, instead of painting with that broad brush?

Perhaps I’m wrong ,but that’s how I feel.

Wow, a runaway imagination, don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up...Victore

I imagine you would be scratched from a jury pool if you can deduct that I am a professional blogger just because I knew what I was going to do at approximately 9:30 AM Monday morning. …. I am retired, so I pretty much determine my own schedule.

Then again, I’m not surprised because the same poster that chastised me for being a partisan cannot see the partisanship in their postings.

I guess the fact that I rarely post after 6:00 PM and Saturday’s and Sunday’s locks up that definition of a professional blogger.

I’ve got to get me a copy of all those rules.

1….Limitations on word usage.
2….I must criticize the right and left equally.
3….If I post, I must engage in ad Hominem attacks(sorry Wayward) couldn't resist..last time,I promise
4…I cannot announce a predetermined date for posting, or I will be labeled a professional blogger.
5…Posters that do not reside in the Victoria County are not welcome.

To think, all these years I thought I was abiding by the rules.

It’s getting late the, time to punch in and write another blog..:-)

texasmom..."I don't know maybe i am being selfish by thinking the way i do. "

No, you're not selfish. You're responsible and right to be a little miffed. I would not be as nice. I think the tubes that need to be addressed here are HERS and they should be tied. Part of being a responsible parent is FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY for your kids and if you don't have that then you shouldn't be having them just to prove the equipment works.

LOL... you said something last Thursday or Friday I will see you all at 9:30 Monday morning. Sounds like a profession to me, career or what ever adj. you care to put on it..

Mike...again, I apologize. I never meant offense. Please feel free to use ad hominem attacks ad nauseum. You'll hear no more of it from me.

lol....Engaged in a profession or engaging in as a profession or means of livelihood=Professional blogger

I am just a lowly poster.

Mike,

Why are you getting so testy here, I didn’t know their was a rank and file system on this forum.

You bark at the right nothing positive to say. It’s Bush’s fault for this massive melt down of the financial system.

Your words are from the left and of those web sites. You have nothing negative to say about left, I don’t know if you agree with the left or not, but you continue to post their agenda.. Please give the right a break it’s not all our fault.

I know nothing about you except that you’re a professional Blogger.

An opinion is always open to criticism.
.

Wayward
I do not want to be linked to your ongoing battle with BigJ, packaged as a suggestion.

What are the limitations on “ad Hominem attacks” or any other words not to your liking? How about the word socialist? Do posters have a limitation on that word?

Am I not bright enough or old enough to use words that might describe the topic I am talking about?

I have been on this forum long enough to recognize selective outrage, disguised as a suggestion…. Suggestions are better left to e-mails if you do not want a partisan blow back.

Of course, as always, this is just my opinion.

Gee, Mike...I SAID it was only a suggestion. Sheesh! I apologize if I hurt your feelings.

atcoffey,

your last sentence of your comment, we have the right to choose, but we must have physical responsibility to make that choice, other words family first, not a case of beer or carton of smokes or a new car or that set of golf clubs you have always wanted. You must have a plan. If your going to wait on the government, which does not always have the best of plans. I don't want the government looking out for me, I know what is best for my family and it's not the government..

That's your opinion ,www,not a fact.

Uhhh, Mike, this isn't an attack; it's more along the lines of a suggestion. Your "ad hominem attack" line is getting almost as old as BigJ's "Ox Bow" whatever-he-calls-it.

My, my Mike that sounded like an ad hominen attack calling me a pest etc. I guess I'll just have to make a major adjustment at being ignored by you - ok I'm over it.

Rollinstone

I am not a substitute for Spock, the other blogger, you used to like having the back and forth ad hominem attacks with… …You say “If you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” But that is your theory and as far as I know you are not the proprietor of this forum….I have ignored you in the past but you continue trying to be a pest.

I do not mind being corrected or anyone posting information contradicting mine but back and forth name calling is unproductive and downright childish..My dislike for you will never change, so this is positively the last post informing you once again, I will ignore all future posts so name call, mock, or correct me all you want...I will not notice.

When I first started on this forum, another poster used me as his target and my ignoring tactic worked….It’s all about the message

Oh boo hoo Mike, you are the one calling everyone who opposes your utopian socialist schemes a "right winger" - like it's some kind of social disease. I just returned the favor and call you a socialist, I'm surprised you took offence.

Brilliant post, atcoffey
Here we go, negotiations are starting to flow.
The nation's hospitals agreed last night to contribute $155 billion over 10 years toward the cost of insuring the 47 million Americans without health coverage, according to two industry sources.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

Rahm Emanuel said one of several ways to meet Mr. Obama's goals is a mechanism under which a public plan is introduced only if the marketplace fails to provide sufficient competition on its own. He noted that congressional Republicans crafted a similar trigger mechanism when they created a prescription-drug benefit for Medicare in 2003. In that case, private competition has been judged sufficient and the public option has never gone into effect.

http://online.wsj.com/article
/SB124692407982802911.html#mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy

You don’t really think Big Pharma (top 30 pharmaceutical companies with revenue in excess of $3 billion) made that deal with Wal-Mart and Target because they were generous…No, they had that government nudge.

Perhaps that $12 box of tissue will come down to $10 but I hope everyone gets on board with Health Care Reform…Status quo is not an option.

“Mike our resident socialist” is resorting to name calling based on a personal opinion, showing an obsessive cling to marginalizing me, instead of making a point…..When right-wings resort to name-calling, it usually means they have nothing else...They crave that ad hominen attack because they cannot compete on subject matter.

Everyone has a right to health care, what else do they have a right to? I guess they should have a right to food, housing, transportation, electricity, water - these are just a few of the basics I'm sure there are more. The age old question is who is going to do the work to pay for these privileges? It's a bummer I know but someone's got to do that.

Mike our resident socialist has posted on this forum an article from the NYT that indicates that Medicare is plagued with fraud. This is a problem because the system is easily scammed by both doctors and other health care providers. Besides that Medicare pays for many things that they shouldn't be providing, things that are not directly related to a person's health.

There is basically no over sight of Medicare or Medicaid it is like stealing candy from a baby. In fact they brag about how low Medicare's administrative costs are. The truth is a government run health care system will soon become a universal health care system - it will make health care affordable like it has made housing affordable.

Most conservatives will argue that government regulation is necessary, of course over regulation and out dated regulation is a burden. But the government should NEVER become a player in the market place. It always ends up costing more, much more and it is a disaster when they try to make things free. All of us pay for this folly, the rich and the poor alike in lost income and opportunity.

And BTW Mike you are throwing that "WE" pronoun around a lot.

In my ministry I'm around a lot of sick people. I see things that most folks aren't privy to. That's why the problem I have with most of the conservative options for healthcare is the underlying assumptions that they are based on. Namely, that rationing is NOT now occurring and that healthcare is a privilege NOT a basic human right. Let me elaborate:

Rationing already occurs based on one’s ability to pay. Nice middle class people with good insurance never really understand that if you don’t have insurance, or that if you have poor insurance, you are denied access to the choices that Rush, Glenn, Sean et al, scream that you–as the nice middle class person–will “lose” if healthcare is socialized–unless of course you are truly poor to the point of homelessness–then you have access to Medicaid. Apparently socialism will use other criteria to ration healthcare and make everyone feel the pain instead of just the "rejects" and "undesirables" of society.

Secondly, for folks (INCLUDING MYSELF) who claim to be all about Christianity and family values, I don’t understand why we don’t understand how Darwinian this idea of healthcare being a privilege rather than a right is. It smacks of survival of the fittest. Privilege is based on one deserving what one gets--which incidently is the exact opposite of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ--so the idea is that “If person X were good enough, smart enough, and an “achiever” then they “deserve” to have healthcare. Otherwise they don’t because they are not good enough.” Folks, this is what survival of the fittest is ALL about. If we claim to be opposed to Darwinism in the teaching of science why do we embrace it when it comes to healthcare? Now I know that seldom is this stated this bluntly, but think about it. Think about what Rush, Glenn and Sean say–really think about what their words mean, and you will understand where I am coming from.

Now let me add, I am not on board for socialism, but I am also not on board the continuation of Social Darwinism and the survival of the fittest mentality. I’m not sure what the right answer is to solve the problems we face, but I’m pretty sure a repeat of the last 30 years of redistributing wealth to the "fittest" is not going to somehow make it all of our healthcare problems go away.

We must stop treating healthcare as a commodity and treat it for what it really is--a right every person should have if they choose to take advantage of it.

I have to chuckle every time I see the 30 year old Ronald Reagan slogan “government is not the solution, government is the problem.” True, government is not the only solution but it is definitely an equalizer. Without government, we would not have had Civil Rights legislation, equal pay for equal work, voting rights or any other inconveniences to big business.

Their “supply and demand” mindset is the reason the Republican Party has a minor role in the Health Care Reform bill. You cannot “supply and demand” a heart attack nor can you negotiate a hip replacement down to a knee replacement. That is the reason we have a health care industry instead of a healthcare system, like other industrial nations. That is a reason for the “I got mine” attitude.

Conservatives like to say “we need less government in business” but what they really are saying "we need deregulation, tax cuts, and privatization”, which amounts to more business in government.'..e.g. Although some posters will scream that we’re broke, they jump up and down because the secretary of defense curtailed funding for the F-22… They felt we needed it for some unforeseen war ,with an unforeseen enemy...Money worth borrowing for.

Bottom line conservatives and liberals are both at the government coffers wanting their share of the pie…It’s all about priorities.

BTW VBB
The National Health Care debate is a nationwide problem, so why is it a bad thing for a person outside the country and state to post their opinion?

This thread is supposed to be about single payer universal healthcare but our legislators are not debating this issue...I think someone is mistaking the "public option" for UHC.

Waywardwind
True “free market principals” have not been applied for 30 years….Look at Medicare Part D, It does not allow competition.
I keep repeating"Can't have both ways."

JBOSCH95, thanks for the breath of fresh air.

jbosch95..."Like it our not, our nation operates as a free market capitalistic society and under this system it is the responsibility of each one of us to pay our own bills whether they be for food, clothing, shelter, toys or yes, even health care."

So far it's been that way.

"It is not the responsibility of others to pay for your care "

YET!

"and it is immoral to burden future generations with debt to pay for a nationalized system."

Prepare to be immoral.

"Why would we want to move to a nationalized system to address only 2% of the population?"

Because some 64 million people decided they wanted change -- change at any cost. They elected a president who clearly does not have the best interests of the country at heart. He hates the capitalist system -- thinks profits are immoral, and the free enterprise system is outdated. I'm afraid that by the time he's finished overhauling everything in this country from automobile production to health care to the banking industry, we won't be able to recognize what was once a great nation.
"

Socialized Medicine is wonderful for healthy people. Only sick people have problems with the care they get.

If we have the best health care system in the world then why do hundreds of thousands of Americans go to foreign countries to get their medical procedures done? It's called medical tourism and you get much better care at a fraction of the cost. And you get treated a lot better. Many of the doctors are even trained in the U.S.

One other point that I want to address is the issue of U.S. health care costs being twice that of other nationalized systems. Yes, U.S. health care costs are more but we must look into the statistics to understand why. On average in the U.S., 80% of all health care costs occur during the last 2 years of life. This is to say that we VALUE life and we will make every effort to save it no matter the age. In many other countries, health care is rationed based on age significantly reducing costs during the last years of life and distorting the cost comparisons.

In addition, in a free market capitalistic system, profit drives innovation, research and development and attracts top talent. Without profits, we run the risk of diminishing the rate of innovation and reducing the quality of care.

This country needs to slow down and make sure that we have a through, extensive debate, factual debate. And God help us, our non-representatives MUST read the bill before casting a vote!!!

Should Health Care Change? What a deceptive title! This debate is not about “Health Care” as everyone has access to health care. The debate is about who will pay for the care!!!!!

Like it our not, our nation operates as a free market capitalistic society and under this system it is the responsibility of each one of us to pay our own bills whether they be for food, clothing, shelter, toys or yes, even health care. It is not the responsibility of others to pay for your care and it is immoral to burden future generations with debt to pay for a nationalized system.

We hear over and over about the 46 million uninsured but we forget about the 280 million insured of which 82% rate their heath coverage as good or excellent. A closer look at the 46 mn uninsured reveals a much different picture than what we hear from the media and our non-representative politicians. Of the 46 million, 14 million are eligible for existing government programs and 70% of uninsured children are eligible for Medicaid, SCHIP, or both. In addition:

• 18.3 mn are under 34 and simply do not think about the need for insurance.
• 10 mn are non-U.S. citizens who may not be eligible.
• 17.6 mn of the uninsured make more than $50,000 per year, and 10 mn of those make more than $75,000 a year; these individuals could easily afford health insurance coverage.

When you take into account the overlap in these statistics, this leaves about 8 mn uninsured that need some assistance. This is only 2% of the population!!!

Why would we want to move to a nationalized system to address only 2% of the population? Are we not at risk of injury to the other 98%? And do we really want the government involved further? As it stands, 46% of the American health care system is already in the hands of the government through Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and the Veterans Administrations and the cost of these programs is rising at more than twice that of the private sector. Include state governments and there are about 2000 mandates on insurance companies that add between 20 and 50 percent to the cost of premiums. In 2005, only 8% of U.S. patients reported waiting four months or more for elective surgery yet in countries with nationalized systems patients reported waits in excess of four months 19-41% of the time.

Government is clearly not the solution but THE PROBLEM!

Ah, I see... since I am NOT an American any insight I may have into this discussion of whether you would benefit from adopting a system similar to the one I was raised in couldn't *possibly* be of any value to anyone here.

The fact that I am NOT an American means that when I point out that the U.S. system is 50% more expensive than pretty much any other system in the world... it doesn't count. Because numbers are apparently exclusively reserved for the use of Americans?

The fact that I am NOT an American means that when I point out that you're wrong about how much Canadian doctor's make you aren't *reeeally* wrong, because an American wasn't the one who shot holes in your claim so it never happened! So you are now free to blissfully go about forming your opinions about the best health care policy based on your obviously incorrect information.

Etc... etc...

Could an American here please do victorianbybirth the great favor of repeating everything I've said to him so he can hear actual facts and figures from a person who is qualified, by virtue of their American citizenship, to make basic observations about reality? Then, having heard them from an American he can begin making informed decisions... he'll thank you later I'm sure.

As for what I care about what "people in a podunk town in Texas" say about health care policy... allow me to welcome you to the internet, since it seems you're new here. See, when a news article is posted anywhere here on the internet people from all around the world can see it, wander over, and should there be a comments utility they can say a thing or two about it if they feel inclined. I for one saw it while browsing google news listings and since it's a topic that interests me and which I know just a little bit about, here I am. That clear things up for you?

Since you are NOT an American, you should have no say. I have met many Canadians who work in the states & take advantage of our healthcare system & are grateful to be able to do so.

It works both ways, guess it becomes a question of whether you prefer to do for yourself or prefer to have others do for you.

Why does a Canadian in California care what people in a podunk town in Texas have to say? And since you are a Canadian in California I have very little use for you & less for your opinion.

Why do I care?

1. It irritates me the way Republican politicians and insurance industry lobbyists in the states constantly smear other nation's systems to scare people out of reforming the one in the U.S.

2. I currently live and work in California, and as long as that situation continues I am stuck with U.S. health care unless I want to hop a flight north if I need any serious medical care... which is an enormous headache. (I fractured my elbow a couple years back. Despite the fact that I happen to have rather good insurance down here, and pay quite a bit for it, it would still have been almost worth it financially for me to pay for a round trip flight to Vancouver to get treated for it there instead instead of paying out of pocket all the expenses my quite good insurance STILL wouldn't cover... that ticked me off. A lot.)

3. I have many, many American friends, and don't like seeing them get absolutely screwed over day in and day out on their health care expenses.

4. I have a basic sense of empathy, and even if I didn't personally know Americans getting worked over by the U.S. system I would object to seeing people victimized in that manner on general principles...

Do I need any other reasons?

Canadian guy....why do you care about our healthcare system? How much do you pay in taxes? Maybe you should mind your own & leave us be....or maybe that old saying "misery loves company" is true. If I wanted to be Canadian, I'd move there. Your opinion means nothing to me now. (not that it did before)

She does vacation quite a bit.

@victorianbybirth: Did I mention I *am* Canadian? So I have a teeny tiny bit of familiarity with what doctors make in Canada. That said, don't take my word for it. Here, enjoy... survey results for median salaries in Canada of several different medical specializations:

http://www.payscale.com/research/CA/P...

Frankly, the only way you know a Canadian doctor who only makes 35k a year is if that doctor spends at least half the year on vacation. Or... he's an incompetent screw-up in private practice with no patient base (and thus no payments) because nobody wants to be seen by him. Or... you're lying through your teeth.

So... which one should we conclude it is?

Again, Mike, I have offered a solution....community based free clinics. Offer the doctors to swap hours for reduced student loans & I am sure you could have them manned 24/7. Of course we should never, ever take baby steps, we should jump in head first.

Josh, I was thinking about your "greedy"comment & how you were pointing it towards doctors. Lawyers typically make more than doctors, with far less schooling. When was the last time you heard of a lawyer suing another lawyer? When was the last time you saw a lawyer on TV crying & wondering if you had ever been poorly represented by another lawyer & pleading for you to call them? Lawyers can't save your life & yet they are still going to be allowed to be off their leash.

The French pay 21% of their income into their healthcare system.....hmmmm....I currently pay between 29-32% add 21%, that has me paying 50% of MY income to the government.

Medicare Part D blows & anybody who claims to bve happy with it is either always looking at the bright side or lying.

Gcomeau, of course health care is rationed, name something that isn't. Everything has a price that determines the supply and demand. Oh, I guess the air we breathe is free.

Smartee, my mom is not having any luck finding a new GP & my sister hasn't had 1 since hers retired. There are new Drs in town, none of who are accepting new patients.

gcome, I happen to know a Canadian Dr who makes 35K a year. How many do you personally know?

Thanks Mike the Misses got me a tissue for my eyes. The part about one third the cost being unnecessary came from the Kaiser Foundation.

But here's another personal story, I know you'd like to hear. I had my eyes checked a few years back and the eye doctor said I should get laser eye surgery. I said what for? He said because Medicare would pay for it and it would be free. I asked him, what does that have to do with my health? He said but it's free !

Another example I see these TV adds for these scooters for people to ride around in. They also are free, what does that have to do with a persons immediate health?

I believe there is a lot of junk like that we are paying for. But removing them will be almost impossible because of the lobbyist, etc. That's what is wrong with a public health care system - I'm starting to tear up now, excuse me!

Those feeling sorry for the insurers, hospitals, and other groups will be relieved to know that they are paying $1.4 million a day on 350 lobbyist…. I wonder who will pay for that?

Well,I've had enough fun for one day and it seems I am leaving the subject in good hands:-)

@itisi: Actually, we "pull these numbers" out of the OECD statistics library... not a magic hat. These figures are well known facts to anyone who knows the first thing about international health care systems.

@rollinstone. The U.S. *already has* rationed care. Do you think the ~40% of the nation with either no or inadequate insurance are in that situation because they think it's fun? EVERY system has rationing because NO system has unlimited resources to spread around. The major difference between the U.S. and, say, Canada in this regard is that Canada rations based on urgency of need, the U.S. rations based on the bank balance of the patient. If your bank balance is too small, adequate health insurance is out of your reach, and out of the line you go. And of course, once you've thrown 30 or 40 or 50 million people out of the waiting rooms the wait time to see a doctor or a specialist for the people who are left is suddenly way smaller... Yay! No wait times! What an awesome system! And just ignore those people we tossed out on their butts... they're not in line any more so they don't count as "waiting".

Come on man, wake up.

In closed-door talks, Mr. Obama has been making the case that reducing malpractice lawsuits — a goal of many doctors and Republicans — can help drive down health care costs, and should be considered as part of any health care overhaul, according to lawmakers of both parties, as well as A.M.A. officials. Health care experts estimate that preventable medical errors kill more than 100,000 Americans each year, yet doctors and hospitals, fearing lawsuits, do not openly discuss their mistakes — an impediment to improving quality of care. At the same time, doctors complain that “defensive medicine” — ordering tests and procedures out of fear of being sued — drives up health cost

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/hea...

The CBOoffice estimates that caps on damages would ultimately reduce malpractice premiums for medical providers but would have a “relatively small” impact on total health spending, reducing it by less than half a percent. Even that could save billions of dollars a year, which is not trivial. But malpractice claims are probably not a major cost driver

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/opi...

Don’t cry: I Just producing sourced material..Beats personal stories and opinion.

I know when I go to the doctor now I am usually bombarded with tests that I know are just milking the system. Why do they do that? Hmmmm, could it be they don’t get paid enough from Medicare and my insurance company to cover their expenses?

It is estimated that these unnecessary tests account for a third of the nation’s health care costs. In addition some of these unnecessary tests are defense against malpractice litigation. Limiting lawsuit liability is also something Obama has promised not to do – I guess he has his lawyer lobbyists to look after. Oh I know what you’re thinking, he promised not to kowtow to those stinking lobbyists – oh well.

And finally there are many factors other than health care that determine life expectancy. For instance in the US I’m sure obesity is a major killer. In France they have a lower rate of heart disease. This low rate is reportedly due to drinking red wine – that they do.

So it is quite a leap to say that we will have a longer life expectancy if we have national health care. In fact with rationed care particularly for the elderly it may in fact go down. Mike I know disputing you is upsetting, but I really mean no harm – try and hold back those tears.

It appears that all of the spaceminded Democrats indent five;

They pull all of these numbers out of a magic hat which "only" comes from the far LEFT of center. msn, please find some real facts..

Obama, the Democrats thinks he is the best thing since icecream. The only reason he got elected, he went to young people which are not so bright, then imbedded his name across their forehead, so they could remeber his name when they went to vote..

Stop picking on the right, the left has broken the back of this country.

Oh come on, we are ahead of Slovenia, Cuba, and Brunei.:-)

I can’t believe Costa Rica is ahead of us.;-(

Good grief, did I seriously just see someone say the U.S. has the best health care in the world? What planet was that comment posted from? The U.S. isn't even in the top 20 for cripes sake.

As for the people inexplicably continuing to ask how in the world you would pay for such a thing as universal coverage, what part of *THE UNITED STATES CURRENTLY HAS THE MOST EXPENSIVE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM ON THE PLANET* don't you folks understand? If the U.S. used ANY other industrialized nations system with their associated cost it would be saving money. Massive amounts of money. Hundreds of billions of dollars a year. France probably has the best health care system on the planet, it is absolutely stellar, it blows the system in the U.S. right out of the water. And it costs them just over 11% of their GDP to run it.

The U.S. currently spends over 15% of GDP on it's system.

15... is bigger... than 11.

Canada spends less than 10% of it's GDP on health care. 15 is also bigger than 10.

The U.K. spends less than 9% of GDP on health care. 15 is also... guess what? Bigger than 9? That's right, it is!

Anyone still having difficulty following that?

Good grief.

Wayward
Deductability ..My fault I left that important word out.

If Michelle Obama came up with an idea ,she would be doing more than most of the GOP(the party of no)...Have yet to hear your solution....I used to have a boss that would not let us bring him a problem, unless we understood all sides of the problem, and had a workable solution....Tha's is what I going to do..Ignore the posters that attack the messenger and don't offer a solution..Too old for back & forth ad homiem attacks.

Mike..."They are reducing the charitable contributions from 35%-28% and I am supposed to be excited about that?…"

Mike, it's THEIR money. If they want to give it away, that's their business. If they decide to keep it, THAT'S their business, too.

"Medicare is bad shape but it can’t be tied to Wall Street, so your party is not interested in fixing it..Oh, I forgot, you are that “above the fray” moderate."

I don't think I've ever described myself as a "moderate." I've repeatedly said that I'm a fiscal conservative and am socially pretty liberal -- I vote Libertarian. So, no, the republicans aren't my party. I also said that the best thing about BO's health care reform plan is that he didn't put his wife in charge of it. :)

UK's life expectancy is 78.7, Canada is 80.34, US is 78.06. Now why is Universal Health Care Bad? UK is ranked among the top five, and the US is ranked 37th.

Wayward
“You gotta love the democrats. They're cutting medical care to some of their most loyal supporteres and hitting the rich with more taxes.”

In the recent financial crisis this country lost about $13 trillion in capital, don’t you think the rich got theirs? They are reducing the charitable contributions from 35%-28% and I am supposed to be excited about that?…They are going to let the Bush tax cuts that targeted the top 2% expire and I am supposed to feel sorry for them?…Entitlements are a huge part of the budget and cuts will eventually have to made or increase the taxes on the middle-class….Medicare is bad shape but it can’t be tied to Wall Street, so your party is not interested in fixing it..Oh, I forgot, you are that “above the fray” moderate.

I will probably have reduced benefits and when I get in Medicare my premiums will have to be raised…..

real intelligent comeback

Is that a habit of the right-wing to use the "we" as if they are the spokesman for the entire forum ,taxpayers, and good Americans"

"rest of us poor tax paying slobs."..As if no one else pays taxes.

"You are either with us or against us"
George W.Bush

No,that in between and other view is alive and well.

Waywardwind
People that do not have a solution and would rather have the argument will key in on words like “Only” to make a point and end it with “Makes me proud to be an American”.

In between was a cut & paste of what I looked up..The $600 billion is a drop from the one trillion dollar proposal..Key in on that word “proposal”….Again what is your solution “I’ve got mine “ or “status quo is good enough”…..We are broke but the health care cost will surpass last year’s costs of about $2.4 trillion.

Tafoer said in another thread “To fund universal health care in France, workers are required to pay about 21 percent of their income into the national health care system.” That is true BUT HE LEFT OUT the rest of the statement.

But it is not as expensive as the U.S. system, which is the world's most costly. The United States spends about twice as much as France on health care. In 2005, U.S. spending came to $6,400 per person. In France, it was $3,300.
To fund universal health care in France, workers are required to pay about 21 percent of their income into the national health care system. Employers pick up a little more than half of that. (French employers say these high taxes constrain their ability to hire more people.)
Americans don't pay as much in taxes. Nonetheless, they end up paying more for health care when one adds in the costs of buying insurance and the higher out-of-pocket expenses for medicine, doctors and hospitals.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st...

"One more point..:-) Preventive care is cheaper than just treating a disease in progress." Is there any "care" to prevent people from growing old, Mikey?

And Mike I don't try to marginalize you, just your socialist ideas that you publish in this public forum. You are a typical liberal, you think every one should just accept what you say because you are so much wiser than the rest of us poor tax paying slobs.

Well, Mike if you can't take the blow back, a great Democrat had some good advice, "If you can't take the heat...."

Mike..."I believe a Health Care Reform will be signed before the year is out…The last plan is only going to cost $600 billion"

ONLY SIX HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS???? ONLY???

Does that sound like a bargain to you?

"this is how it will be paid for."

"1. Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid; $600 billion in unspecified new taxes, likely including new levies on upper-income Americans."

So the plan is to cut care to those who are least able to afford to pay and increase taxes on the rich. You gotta love the democrats. They're cutting medical care to some of their most loyal supporteres and hitting the rich with more taxes.

"2. Individuals required to have insurance"

Yessir, boy. The thing I've always hated most about the United States is that darned ol' freedom of choice stuff.

3. Employers must provide insurance to their employees or pay a penalty of 8 percent of payroll."

I guess small businesses will just have to close up shop, putting a lot of people out of work and making them even more dependent on government.

"4. Individuals and families with annual income up to 400 percent of poverty level ($88,000 for a family of four) would get subsidies to help them buy coverage."

Mike, the nation is broke NOW. How do you propose to pay for all those subsidies? Oh, yeah, I forgot. More service cuts for the poor and more tax increases on the rich.

Makes me proud to be an American.

"

Doctors/Specialist

1. Determine doctors needed annually.
2. Determine number of college prospects.
3. Determine prospect deficit.

Offer fully funded academic scholarships to those who commit themselves to becoming a doctor or specialist and relocating to shortage areas for 8 years, under a predetermine pay scale.

It would be like committing to the service.

Hospitals

1. Provide funding for the construction of energy efficient and independently powered mini hospitals, with free room and board, and air commuter service for specialist and doctors operating out of the hospital.
2. Contract out these hospitals to the private sector until the cost of construction and operation is paid in full. Then transfer over ownership to the private interest.

This deals with the supply and demand problem; and allows for health care professions to work out of many different hospitals across the country without moving. In the short run government may do well in a project but long term control tends to not be so good.

Pharmaceutical Companies

1. Annually require the “specified production” of “marginally profitable” generic or priced reduced brands specifically available to citizens approved by government, because of economic hardship.

This reduces the cost of coverage to low-income citizens “without increasing cost or taxing those with insurance”. Companies will have no reason to transfer cost on to their more affluent customers and suffer no lost, since these people wouldn’t even have the money to pay more if they had too.

Medical Equipment and Supply Companies

2. Annually require the “specified production” of “marginally profitable” generic or priced reduced brands specifically available to citizens approved by government, because of economic hardship.

This reduces the cost of coverage to low-income citizens “without increasing cost or taxing those with insurance”. Companies will have no reason to transfer cost on to their more affluent customers and suffer no lost, since these people wouldn’t even have the money to pay more if they had too.

Health Insurance Providers

Offer “Health Service” to all citizens similar to the Postal Service. Establish rates according to occupation. Basically, a percentage of their income; this should discourage those who earn over $200,000 a year from dropping their insurance. I’m just using that number as a base point to illustrate my idea.

I think this would be a decent compromise and reduce disruption to our health care system, but like someone said nobody is listening.

Barry,

That was great!!!!!!!!!

I believe this video fits here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a6YdN...

WOW! The left is busy today..

Yes there is fraud, but instead of letting it fester this administration is doing something about it.

To attack the fraud, the Justice Department this year set up a strike force at a remote office park near Miami, and in just six months prosecutors filed 74 cases charging 120 people with allegedly trying to steal $400 million from Medicare.

While officials claimed the concentrated law enforcement efforts led to a $1.4 billion drop in Medicare billing in the area

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22184921

On the other side; cutting government subsidies to private insurance companies under Medicare could save $150 billion over the next decade.

American was not built by ‘Naysayers’
Barack Obama

The United States has the best healthcare in the world.. Why would you want another healthcare system like medicare? The government is only good for writing the checks. 46 million new customers, the need for more doctors, where will they come from?
You go to an ER you will not be turned away even if your are an illegal alien. The 64 million that voted for change and 46 million w/out INS.. I have INS, am I greedy, I think not, I had a plan..

What I think and post is not that important but maintaining a level playing field by using facts instead of letting gloom and doom scenarios stand tall is important…IMO.

I am not for Universal Health Care because those that have health insurance are pretty much satisfied and I can see by having everyone covered their premiums will be lowered…I do see more and more companies putting the burden of rising costs on their employees..Several major employers are dropping their health care coverage…Wal-Mart is behind the plan for the penalty being imposed on those companies that do not provide health insurance…I have always been for compromise and now that all the major players are at the table, I believe a Health Care Reform will be signed before the year is out…The last plan is only going to cost $600 billion and this is how it will be paid for.

1. Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid; $600 billion in unspecified new taxes, likely including new levies on upper-income Americans.
2. Individuals required to have insurance, enforced through tax penalty with hardship waivers.
3. Employers must provide insurance to their employees or pay a penalty of 8 percent of payroll. Certain small businesses are exempt.
4. Individuals and families with annual income up to 400 percent of poverty level ($88,000 for a family of four) would get subsidies to help them buy coverage.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/a...

Taxpayers are paying an unstated tax right now with the rising care of Health Care and fraud is not limited to Medicare but consider the methods insurance companies use to deny coverage or payment amounts to legal fraud…Some would call it “the cost of doing business”..A coin has TWO SIDES.

There is not a price tag for Universal Health Care because it is not being discussed.

You can continue trying to marginalize me and my statements or you can keep up with the legislation and the new ideas….

I don’t buy into the “You are either with me or against me” tag…

"Interesting subject but our legislators are not even considering a "universal healthcare" plan, right now."

A "universal healthcare" plan could provide the database of standard practices and cost; electronic records could be used to improve efficiency (aka, "rationed" health care) …. The private insurance companies have a 14% to 18% administrative costs (marketing and full time claim denial clerks) compared to Medicare’s 3%.

Read these two statements, Mike and see if they don't bring a chuckle. Who are you trying to kid ???

The reason that Medicare has low administrative costs is they make no attempt at monitoring fraud. I have heard that the amount of fraud with Medicare is very significant - well it's not there money they are spending so, why care?

And finally you say from time to time you are not for universal health care, but er, well probably you are, it's fairly obvious. But there is one question, HOW DO WE PAY FOR IT? Yep, you guess it raise taxes on everyone, but do it slyly using a lot of smoke and mirrors so us stupid taxpayers don't know we've been had.

Interesting subject but our legislators are not even considering a universal healthcare plan, right now.

I can understand why the insurance companies and doctors don’t want universal healthcare; it means less in their pocket… Many doctors do not take Medicare because for that reason.
A universal healthcare plan could provide the database of standard practices and cost; electronic records could be used to improve efficiency…. The private insurance companies have a 14% to 18% administrative costs (marketing and full time claim denial clerks) compared to Medicare’s 3%..

47 million new customers will mean more volume for the doctors. The insurance companies did not voluntarily take on those with preconditions, if they did not see the profit motive of having 47 new customers, in the legislation that is before Congress….

I have noticed that those on the right always have that friend in the United Kingdom or Canada personal story that cannot be verified, but I believe one -sided horror stories can be produced from those that have been declined on their insurance claims…. The insurance companies have benefited from their monopoly; that cannot be denied.

I rarely use personal stories that cannot be verified but all my friends are happy with their Medicare, my Social Security check comes in every month, and they are all run by the government…. That old adage of “the government gets everything wrong; and the private insurance companies are looking out for you” has been debunked several times by taxpayers who have been denied Health Insurance or payment for claims.

One last point…. At the age of 65 in a lot of baby boomers will automatically be moved to Medicare. …

One more point..:-) Preventive care is cheaper than just treating a disease in progress.

Smartee: Oh we've got the doctors...they just aren't anyone I want to trust my life or the lives of my family to. We go to Houston for nearly everything now, outside colds, URI's and minor ailments.

VBB: You are somewhat correct in your statement. The salary figure may be off somewhat, but I know two doctors that have come to Victoria from Canada and they each told me the same thing: To make any money they had to have a specialty on the side and even with that it wasn't enough to justify the expenses they had incurred to get their training and licensing.

If you listen closely to what Obama has said you will begin to realize that the key to making government healthcare work is in the overseers of the system deciding your medical treatment on a cost by cost basis and what scares me is that the elderly will seem to be at placed at risk of just not receving the care they need because they are old and near the end of their lives.

Our healthcare system is definitely not perfect, not by a long shot but the government has never run anything efficiently, at least nothing I was ever associated with. Whatever figures they start out quoting you can bet will double or triple before it is all said and done.

Our current health care system has a few flaws. So we are going to "change" it and make it worse. That's not "change" we can live with.

VBB is exactly right a universal government health system will increase demand requiring more doctors. At the same time they will try to reduce costs by paying doctors less. That will decrease the number of doctors. That's why there will be rationing and it will produce enormous pressure on costs.

That's what is happening right now with medicare and medicaid. Since these entitlements were enacted health care costs have increased at two to three times the rate of inflation and these programs aren't universal - yet.

What they are trying to do is out smart the law of supply and demand - it can't be done and it has nothing to do with greed. I always get a chuckle when someone points to someone else and says they're greedy - "judge not....."

@victorianbybirth: if you want to discuss the issue seriously try doing it without simply imagining facts and figures then trying to pass them off to people as real. Seeing as the average doctor's salary in Canada is roughly THREE TIMES what you just claimed it was... and that's just for GPs, not specialists... tell me why everyone here shouldn't proceed to ignore everything you say from here on out?

Except we won't be, as there will be fewer doctors. Victoria already has a shortage.

Josh, would you spend 10+ years of your life & rack up 100K+ in loans to do a job that pays very little, has long hours & opens you up to lawsuits? If so, then put your money where your mouth is & go to medical school, I'll even settle for nursing school. Better yet, go be a CNA right now & see how you like it.

This is something we will all be paying for for the rest of our lives & the government will essentially be the decider on how long that is. I think it should be 100% for or not at all.

If you don't want your mom drowning in medical bills, do everything you can to help her out. That's what FAMILY is for.

What a lot of these people are not seeing is that the UNITED states is a VERY greedy country. This greed drives people wild and out of their minds... I do believe the smartest thing for us to do is have universal health care, I don't want a doctor fixing me when all he wants from helping me is his hefty wallet being filled with more cash. I don't want my mother to live knowing she's in the gutter because of her medical bills. I want people to let go of their greed and their selfishness and get a grip on what this could mean for the entire country! Jesus Christ on crutches! Think CLEARLY people! So what!? they'll take a couple more bucks from our paycheck, it's not like we don't already pay taxes on things we don't have anything to do with, that's like me saying screw paying taxes I have NEVER been pulled over yet I'm paying this cop's salary. Besides, everyone will be overall much more healthy, and doesn't knowing that more people will be healthy and secure make you feel a little happier?

Free clinics should be for all, not just women, first of all. Secondly, if ones insurance doesn't cover things like pre-natal, then the clinic could offer said service for a lowered rate. Again, there has got to be some middle ground. Universal Health Care will be impossible to reverse once it gets started, I don't think something this life altering should be passed by a few who don't have all of our best interests at heart.

Instead of jumping from the frying pan into the fire, why don't we bring back community based free clinics? I'm sure there are plenty of doctors out there that would be more than happy to work a shift a week to offset student loans.

The product of health insurance is to provide you with medical coverage when you need it.
Unlike other businesses that need to provide you with their product in order to make any money, health insurance companies actually make more money for themselves when they restrict and do not pay claims.
In other words, they make more money when they do NOT provide the product that you have paid them for.

Read the 50 to 70 pages of your health insurance contract.
Pay particular attention to the section entitled “limitations and exclusions”.
People’s health is not a product that needs to be left to the whims of money motivated CEO’s and stockholders.
If that is your thinking, you might as well have your police and fire department protection based on insurance premiums you pay.
Then you can go to the police and fire protection insurance page for ‘limitations and exclusions’ on whether or not the police or fire department would come out to your house in the event of an emergency.

The point is, you would never think of discriminating against another citizen if he was the victim of a fire or crime.
So why would you be ok with health insurance companies discriminating against fellow citizens who have pre-existing medical conditions?

Doctors in Canada make about 35K a year. We would have a huge shortage of qualified doctors. Who in their right mind wants to spend 10+ years in school & incur all the debt for so little renumeration.

I have friends from the UK and they detest the healthcare system there. If something serious arises, many that can afford it, come to the US for treatment. Many procedures are simply determined to be excessive and too expensive and are denied by the board that oversees the system. The older you get the less they want to spend on you. Do we really want a panel of bureaucrats deciding what medical procedures we can and cannot have based on how much they want to spend on us. Granted our situation is not the best but it beats these government run systems. As it is now, anyone, including those in this country illegally, that need medical attention can get it by walking into any county supported hospital ER. I don't have a solution to this mess but I don't support government run healthcare at all. Just look at the VA for a sneak preview.

@Observer: You have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, there are some wait times for some procedures in Canada. As opposed to the situation in the U.S.... where wait times are kept low by just telling tens of millions of people to take a hike and NEVER get the procedure they want because the only way they can pay for it is to bankrupt themselves. So their wait time is... THEIR ENTIRE LIFE. But they aren't actually on a list anywhere as actually "waiting" for the procedure so hey! Look at that! No waiting in the U.S.! What a wonderful system it must be!

Please tell me you're not that gullible...

Both the Canadian and American systems ration care because neither system has unlimited medical resources. The Canadians do it based on urgency of medical need. The U.S. does it based on the bank account balance of the patient. Too low a balance, no health coverage for you, get the heck out of line.

Or were you actually under the impression that the tens of millions of Americans with no health insurance, and the tens of millions more with totally inadequate coverage, are in that situation just because they like it there?

And then there's the fact that studies consistently show that both system produce roughly equivalent health outcomes... but the U.S. system costs almost 50% MORE. Do you have any idea how much money the U.S. would be saving if it had a system that cost 10% of it's GDP like the Canadian system does? About three quarters of a TRILLION dollars. A year.

But hey, if you're happy and content having private insurance companies permanently attaching an industrial strength vacuum to your wallet, whatever. Some of us are sane though.

If things are so great in Canada, why is he in Victoria Tx

Professor Mehan is doing one of two things, either whistling past the graveyard or lying through his teeth. Surely he is aware of the numerous documented, peer-reviewed studies that reached the same conclusions about the socialized medical system in Canada -- the wait times to see a physician, particularly a specialist, are absolutely horrendous by American standards. If this is not the case, how does he explain the thousands of Canadians who come to this country EVERY YEAR to obtain health care denied them by their benevolent government-run socialized medicine system?

qbert "FOR PRESIDENT - He will let us have more of everything."

yes there should be universal health care but only people who make more money a year than i do should have to pay for it. plus there should be universal vehicles, universal concert tickets, universal restaurants, and universal travel around the world