What exactly IS the argument against universal health care?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

Seriously, who's against everyone having health insurance? What could possibly be their reasoning?

Is it money? If so, most of the big corporations are actually on board for universal health care. It's a lot cheaper to pay for through taxes than it is to provide it to your employees.

Is it service? Ask a few Canadians about their system. It works. Or do you not think we're capable of handling such a system due to our inherent inferiority to the Canadian people? (Yes, that's sarcasm intended to strike the heart of any freeper.)

Really, people. What's the f'ing problem here?

[merh]

1. Greed!

:cry:

[skypilot]

2. My take on it...

...is that some people feel the same way about it as they do about welfare. They don't want to help pay for anything that is going to benefit people who "don't want to work". I think that might be part of it.

[SammyWinstonJack]

80. So selfishness is the reason?

Figures. Greed selfish self serving self absorbed, nice morals! So glad I was raised better then that.

[skypilot]

94. Yup. Just like my sig line says.

No universal health care but they'll scream bloody murder if someone tries to remove my feeding tube. "Culture of life" and all that.

[Vinca]

114. That argument falls on deaf ears in this household.

My husband and I are both self-employed and probably work longer hours than most, but we can't afford insurance because one of us has a chronic condition that drove the price out of the ballpark.

[longship]

3. The corporations controlling the system will lose control

to doctors and other health care professionals.

[NewJeffCT]

125. I bet a lot of big corporations would love it!

GM, Ford & Chrysler for 3. Probably GE and several other biggies, too. I'm guessing the ones that would be most against it would be mainly pharmaceuticals & health insurers, none of whom are as big as GM, Ford or GE.

The problem is that Big Pharma & Big Health Insurance are much more passionate in their opposition to universal health care than GE, GM & Ford are passionate for it. I mean, just think what great publicity GM would get if they closed a plant in Canada & moved it back to Detroit after universal health care passed?

[anarch]

4. why, that's just communism in a nice wrapper!!!

"better dead than red". I think that's the only argument.


I didn't say it was a good argument.

[KansDem]

46. You just summed it up nicely...

"Better dead than red"--better to die of illness which could be treated and prevented with universal health care than to actually have an illness treated or prevented with that "commie" system.

[SammyWinstonJack]

81. I thinks it like everything else with the repukes,

Only those who can afford health care should have it, iow, pay your own way.

[bspence]

5. It's both

You pretty much covered it. Republicans just don't believe that it's cheaper in the long run to pay through taxes, and they're afraid that their medical care would be hurt. They don't like the expansion of government.

I think they're morons, but that's why they're in the Republican party.

[ulysses]

6. 'socialism'

Be afraid.

[rodeodance]

64. socialism is a tem to demean univ. health care.

[lazarus]

7. here's what makes me laugh

I've actually been told that in the evil commie/socialist world, where they have universal health care, you sometimes have to wait THREE! WHOLE! MONTHS! to see a specialist.

I'm in a major city (San Diego). I've got very, very good insurance through my wife's work. We both, for different reasons, need to see a dermatologist.

Two weeks ago, my wife made appointments for us. After spending several hours on the phone, the earliest she could get was mid-October.

THREE! WHOLE! MONTHS! from now.

[ulysses]

11. the commies are in San Diego!

Run!

:D

[lazarus]

37. yup

Especially in our neighbourhood (North Park). We just moved here, but it's awash with Donna Frey signs, Air America bumperstickers, etc. Haven't seen any other DU stickers, but there's always hope...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. Yeah, my girlfriend has a thyroid condition.

It'd take her almost a year to get an appointment with a local doctor. Instead, she just commutes to her old one 3 hours away every few months. It's retarded.

[htuttle]

8. The fear is that our corporate masters in the insurance biz will be angry

Who do you think Congress and the President work FOR anyway?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

It's the corrupt Insurance industry, of course! What else can you expect from people that are literally betting the odds that something horrible might not happen to you.

[SammyWinstonJack]

82. Yeah funny that an industry in the business of insuring the sick

doesn't actually want to INSURE the sick.

[Amonester]

119. So True...

They want to PROFIT FROM the sick.

Actually, that's what they do...

Now, THAT's sick!

:yoiks:

[Greyhound]

22. Ditto, from Greyhound. n/t

[Spock_is_Skeptical]

55. darn tootin'

unfortunately.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aintitfunny]

18. Yes, those are the arguments after we get past Socialism (n/t)

[TreasonousBastard]

58. Sounds like an HMO, but at half the price.

[election_2004]

10. "Socialized medicine"

That's the only phrase the GOP needs to utter in order to guarantee that swing voters will rapidly retreat from a Democrat's health care proposal.

[endarkenment]

26. The 'mainstream' candidates don't offer it as an option

So how the heck would we know how 'swing voters' would react? Democratic 'mainstream' candidates all offer some horrendous complicated nonsense that is beyond comprehension and appears to keep insurance company profits built into the system. "Swing voters" are less than enthusiastic about that sort of proposal, as am I, and for good reasons.

[blondeatlast]

51. That's so very true. I wince at every new plan that comes along.

I've been pushing for UHC for years, and the only sensible plan is everyone covered, all the time.

Dilute the risk pool to an indefinite point, and we all benefit.

[election_2004]

66. Because....

That's the way they were able to frame "Hillarycare" in '93.

A near-universal health care blueprint can be touted if it's presented in the right way and by the right candidate...but it has to be a palatable plan and the best messenger.

[endarkenment]

74. hillarycare was an abomination

exactly the sort of complicated corrupt crap I am talking about.

UHC is very simple and as soon as you say 'near-universal' I'm wondering what you are talking about.

Step 1: expand medicare to cover everyone.
Step 2: scrap the stupid ass corrupt bullshit pharma-company benefit and replace it with a real perscription benefit.

Done.

[napi21]

12. Some complain it would be too expensive, but the biggest

complaint I've heard is that the HC services would deteroriate and nobody would get GREAT HC anymore, and you'd have to wait for MONTHS or years to get treated.

Now, I don't agree with that. I've seen too many Canadians here on DU say they were very satisfied.

I'm also positive that all those insurance companies would be litterally fighting for their lives! If the US ever does get Universal HC, those Ins. Cos. won't go away quietly!

[zipplewrath]

33. The Canadian courts don't agree with you

Canada's system is so "good" that their own supreme court said it bordered on the unconstitutional:

"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," wrote Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin for the 4-3 Court last week. "

Universal health care is "expensive" because strangely enough people who are sick expect to get treated. Right now we have an economic rationing of healthcare. If you can afford it you get it. Once you have to pay for every single person who is sick, the cost will rise because rationing won't exist based upon who can pay. At that point you either pay the whole bill, or ration it based upon some other criteria. But if we cut out much of the profit, we can save a bit. The health insurance companies will probably cease to exist, but they'll find other ways to insure folks. The real problem will be in defining what a "health care cost" is because it is hard to separate the causes of health problems from the treatments. Homelessness causes health problems. Do you get a perscription for an apartment?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. If you think there are no waiting lists in the U.S., then you've been

very sheltered.

[zipplewrath]

112. Depends upon your definition of "waiting list"

What the Canadian court described is much more along the line of "rationing" as I talked about. It is denial of health care via delay. The US system is more about denial based upon economic ability to pay. The original question is one of the objections to the concept of nationalized medical care and cost is the big driver. It is the big driver because in almost any system, there are more folks who need care than are currently getting treatment. So as soon as you make treatment available to everyone, the volume increases rapidly. Your choice is to either greatly expand availability (including its associated costs) or to limit availability and therefor the associated delays. And this is where the "us against them" aspect comes into the political debate. Those that already have medical insurance, or the ability to pay, are on the "inside" and don't want the system flooded with people. Those on the "outside" want in and will accept delays since of course sometime is better than never.

[blondeatlast]

52. Can you give us a link?

Without it, I consider that just a rumor. Sorry, but it's my job to be a stickler about sources.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zipplewrath]

110. Here ya go

Excuse me for presuming you'd read about it already.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2005/06/10/court_ruling_expected_to_change_canadas_health_care_system/

[wli]

14. wage suppression

Basically, you either get an across the board wage increase to compensate for higher taxation rates, or the burden is (partially) put directly on the employer, with loopholes for getting out of doing so in a large number of cases (part-time employees, gay partners, and even going so far as to split the cost with the employees).

It also penalizes employment of American residents by foreign firms, so that wage arbitrage is easier for US businesses to do.

[melissinha]

28. Thats it wage suppression

We've seen who votes down minimum wage increases.

But this is the way it would work, wage increases to compensate for tax increases that would pay in for the insurance....

I hardly think that we should be concerned with foreign firms. We have a crisis! A lot of those foreign firms are from countries that already provide state provided Health care.. they just lose the added benefit of NOT paying to cover insurance.

But never mind the thousands of people who die because they couldn't afford insurance or to pay their bills up front. never mind.

[xray s]

16. "Socialism"

BOO!

[melissinha]

31. Dontcha hate it

When they think that attaching the "socialism" or "socialist" word to a pathetic argument is effective.

SO WHAT! The philosophy of socialism is ultimately "Christian" and there are hybrid forms and philosophies that are effective.

Next time someone throws that out.... say "SO WHAT!" Do you even know what socialism is? Also ask them what they have against poor people... does it make it easier to sleep at night when you have a rotten selfish outlook on your neighbors?

[AValdoux]

17. Brainwashed Sheeple...

...who have been told it is the first step to communism. The thought of an ID card tied to a national data base for health care freaked them out when hilary talked about.

We will never get universal health care until people realize health care is a right not a priviledge. To me a middleman (Insurance co's) making a profit off health care is obscene. People get upset that someone gets free health care but they don't care that health insurance companies are reporting record profit numbers.


AValdoux

[Guckert]

19. Not enough sick kids the GOP scum could make fun of.

[sandnsea]

20. The Veteran's Administration

If you really and truly want to understand the objection, which most people don't, but if you did, just look at the VA. That's what average people do whenever government health care comes up.

And Europe's health care isn't completely free and has private insurance and health coverage in addition. Maybe, just maybe, if the left would present the TRUTH about international health insurance, some of those folks who are afraid of VA health care will support a program that still allows them private care.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. Let's look at how the VA is funded.

Extremely poorly. Why? Because Republicans keep cutting programs.

[sandnsea]

34. And?

Exactly what do you suppose would happen with government health care? Do you not pay attention when other countries have fights over taxes and their health care programs?

[blondeatlast]

53. What happens when Medicare is cut?

Oh, yeah, I forgot--no one DARES.

[sandnsea]

126. You're not serious?

Medicare gets cut all the time. Doctors won't even take Medicare patients anymore. People have to fight to have diagnostic examinations, like mammograms. And this is for a program that we pay for with payroll taxes AND seniors pay for with premiums and some deductibles.

Facing the realities of the limitations of government health care is the only way we're ever going to get over the hurdles that keep people from supporting single payer or some other form of universal health care. It does no good to pretend other countries have one free health care system when it's not true, or that our government programs don't face serious problems as well. We are going to have to offer a public/private plan and the sooner everybody recognizes that, the quicker it will get done.

[OneTwentyoNine]

21. No way can we afford it !! So we burn through 185 BILLION in Iraq...

With well over 200 BILLION appropriated to that disaster. Let Bush and his flaming RW'ers explain that one away.....

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. It's socialism,

and socialism is communism, and everybody knows that communists hate god, so reciprocally, god hates communists, god hates socialists, and therefore god hates universal health care.

See how simple it is?

[formerrepuke]

25. Because they have it in Cuba....CUBA!!!!

Equal health care for everyone? But.. they have it in CUBA!

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

29. Funny argument cons. that life expectancy is longer in Cuba than the US

eom

[mmonk]

27. It's a socialist, commie, liberal, terrorist lover

solution. Don't you listen to rw radio? And by the way, "conservative" Americans think Hillary will socialize everything including medicine (which is funny in that she is trying to appeal to these idiots which means her strategy won't work).

[fudge stripe cookays]

30. According to my selfish aunt...

"I don't want nobody getting nothing they didn't pay for!"

This coming from a woman whose only experience with "paying for" anything comes from being a housewife for her entire life, and using the money her husband earned.

:eyes:
FSC

[Botany]

32. Ever see how big insurance buildings are?

The whole point is to take in as much money as you can and fight
when you have to pay any of it out.

We pay double what all other western countries pay for health care
with less benefits for more people.

[Lindacooks]

132. Yep, that's exactly right.

I hate insurance companies with every fiber of my being. They made the time when we were fighting my dh's cancer (we were 25 years old) much much worse by constantly disallowing treatments, saying the amount we were charged for things like chemo were 'above the median cost for your area'. As though we were going to go comparison shopping for the cheapest fucking treatment when he had CANCER!!!

I'm really surprised that nobody (yet) has 'gone postal' on insurance companies. They're the lowest of the low.

[XemaSab]

36. Dude, it's socialist!

And that's just like communist!

[Jim__]

38. An argument that I hear a lot is that if you socialize medicine, then

you lose the market incentive for people to work hard to deliver the best medicine, cheaply. Right now, this country has a superstitious obsession with the power of the market; and, once you tell people you are losing the market incentive, all they see is, a visit to the doctor becoming like a visit to the Department of Motor Vehicles.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

39. Another funny argument cons. we pay more per capita and get less

for the money spent than ANY other nation on Earth.

[Greyhound]

40. I'd classify it as a successful indoctrination, rather than a

superstitious obsession. The sheeple will believe anything that they're told more than once by any 'authoritah'. :banghead:

[lumberjack_jeff]

43. I can *afford* to go to the DMV.

[leesa]

61. It's currently much worse than the DMV. It's unsafe.

[NVMojo]

41. the corporate trough sucking Repukes believe in healthcare for the rich

and it will be used as a form of population control in the future. Just watch.

[area51]

71. Too late, my friend: the future is here.

NVMojo said:

"the corporate trough sucking Repukes believe in healthcare for the rich and it will be used as a form of population control in the future. Just watch."

Access to healthcare already is being used for population control. We ration healthcare on the ability to pay -- thus ensuring that only the wealthy can continue to live. We are truly a barbaric country.

[rniel]

42. Some rich dude won't be able to buy his yacht ! !

Same as everyone says. Corporations control our government and anything that hurts their profits is a no go.

[newswolf56]

44. The real reason behind opposition to national health care is...

the Bush/Christofascist/GOPorker belief that society should be deliberately structured to make poverty as hurtfully awful (that is, as potentially deadly) as possible -- this to force "lazy, sinful humanity" into ever-more-frenzied rat-race competition. Anything that eases the burdens of poverty (as national health insurance would do) is therefore denounced (as "sinful" or "communist" etc.) and fanatically opposed.

What Bush has done -- this is why it is a suicidal error to regard him as stupid -- is re-forge the ancient bond between Christianity and capitalism, so that the Fundamentalist Christian ethos (with its Biblical mandate to conquer and exploit, and its division of all humanity into a hierarchy of "elect" and "sinners" -- i.e. plutocrats and proletarians) is once again the core ethos of capitalism. Meanwhile the Fundamentalist preachers who propagate it are once again the political officers of the new theocracy (just as they were among the Puritan Fathers, just as they have always have been in the Bible Belt South).

The Big Business interest in all this is simple greed: the smaller portion of the (ultimately limited) money supply that's spent on wages and social services, the more money there is for the oligarchy and its fat-cat plutocrats. The Christofascist interest is of course the imposition of theocracy -- the seizure of ultimate political power in the corporatist state. Remember in this context that Bush repeatedly told his business-school professors that people are poor only because they are stupid or lazy -- in other words, because they are not among Yehveh's "elect." Which dovetails perfectly with the Fundamentalist doctrine that the afflictions of poverty, sickness and disability are all the result of divine vengeance: punishments for unspeakable sins. To provide adequate healthcare is therefore blasphemy: defiance of "God's will" and obstruction of "God's plan."

I witnessed firsthand the infinite menace of Christian Fundamentalism both during the Civil Rights Movement and during all the other years I spent in the South, where one of the most common names for the Ku Klux Klan was "the Saturday Night Men's Bible Study Class." The fact a U.S. President has not only brazenly elevated such hateful people into allies but indeed has repeatedly named them as his most important constituency is the most terrifying development in the entire span of U.S. history: Google "dominionist christianity" to read about the true magnitude of the tyranny that has been loosed on America. Verily, the Republic has never faced such a dire threat from within. Woe unto women, gays, secularists, Wiccans, agnostics, scientists -- anyone the preachers denounce as an "abomination."

The administration's opposition to adequate health care and its attempts to otherwise destroy the social safety net (by eliminating most of it and turning what remains into profit centers for Big Business) are all additional expressions of this threat and the unholy alliance that empowers it. But the implications for the future go far beyond the methodical elimination or prohibition of social services. At risk is the Republic itself, including the integrity of the 2006 and 2008 elections -- if indeed they are permitted at all. The health-care crisis is merely more evidence not only of the oligarchy's ultimate intent, but of the grave extent to which the plutocrats have already reduced America's workers to Third-World status: we are the only industrialized nation on the planet that lacks universal healthcare, but now our rulers have a religious rationale for defiantly maintaining (and in fact maliciously worsening) the extent to which we are all oppressed.

[GreenPartyVoter]

45. "It's not MY job to take care of everyone else."

[raccoon]

78. that kind of remark really chaps my arse

usually it's being said by somebody who (so far) is lucky enough to have medical insurance provided by their employer, or is on Medicare.

I think that when some people who think like this lose their employer-provided group insurance--and they will, as more and more people are downsized, and more and more employers don't offer health insurance, or else you can't afford the premiums, they'll think differently about national health care.

A national health plan may have its drawbacks, but it's a damn sight better than nothing.

Another thing, a lot of Americans don't realize that there are serious problems with individual health insurance.

First, let's assume you're fortunate enough to be able to pay the high premiums. You still may not find individual medical insurance because of health problems you already have. I have a self-employed brother-in-law who, a few years ago, couldn't get health insurance because he had high cholesterol.

Another thing, insurance companies CAN and DO write exclusions on individual policies, if you have a health condition already. I know of real-life cases where this has happened to people who've had problems with depression and back problems. The exclusion means the insurance company won't pay for anything associated with that problem, NEVER, EVER, NO WAY. It's going to be all out of your own pocket.

Another reason why the US needs a national health plan.

[Nederland]

47. People don't trust government

They don't like the idea of placing their well being in the hands of politicians.

[blondeatlast]

54. Like they didn't with that huge failure, Medicare.

:eyes:

[ulysses]

70. they'd rather put themselves in the care of corporations.

Natch.

[blondeatlast]

84. Well, of course. CIGNA always has my best interests at heart... nt

[ulysses]

98. gimme some of that hmo love!

:silly:

[Nederland]

88. Medicare is unsustainable

The only reason its still around is because its applicable to a fraction of the population. If the entire health care system were converted to a Medicare style system the government would go bankrupt in under a decade.

[rman]

77. Let's see: the RW doesn't trust the government they have 'elected'.

So they'd rather place their well being in the hands of corporations, and they are now experiencing first-hand just how well that works.

And who exactly are these "people" you talk about? Surely they are not "all people", since many do in fact support collective, tax-funded health care (as you can see here on DU).

And it's actually those people who do not trust the Bush government (unlike the RW), but those same people do believe in the principal of self-governance by means of elected representatives and transparency in government.

[CBHagman]

96. But they're okay with the interstate highways, the military...

...Social Security, Medicare, farm subsidies, government contracts, etc. It's like Newt Gingrich and his then-district, Cobb County. Gingrich would rant about government spending, but it turned out that his own district received a good deal from the federal government in terms of entitlement programs, contracts, and the like.

[Deja Q]

48. Excessive desire for profit by those who "supply" the "service"

The Bible says strong things against the greedy. I hope they remember that.

[pretzel4gore]

49. universal health care means=single payer

even the doctors become mere 'workers with demands' when you have a single payer....it's then all administration, to be sure thiefs don't con the system...in canada's experience, the sheer power of the customer, ie the people (government) and long experience in the biz with all the traditions on record means all the little games the various parties play become routine....and the savings in a single payer system is astounding... canada has had ohip, or provincially administered health care, only since the 60's, and that's with a usa right next door...the usa has certain specialists, a larger med establishment and alot of rightwing ideas; to hire away experienced, skilled med. personnel, lure away wealthy patients and a newsmedia which grasped at every problem in the canadian system, sometimes falsely...all this yet the canadian system survived, and will continue to survive for the simple reason each dollar spent gets a dollar's (?) worth of return, in part from giving the pharm giants a fair price for the dope, and then routinely tossing in a hefty profit, nothing more...these guys are all pros and like technicians, no one can con them and say 'we need bigger profits to justify investment in research' etc...while in a private system that's exactly what happens...another thing that rarely gets mentioned is that, once the medical professionals get a certain fair salary, while some still run off to usa (i recall once the entire philipino nurse group sent to train in canada at great cost to the philippines defected to usa system after graduation!) many are content with a good salary, and consider the fact everyone gets med treatment a personal private benefit ....usa medical pros also have come to canada out of convictions; it's not just the other way around.
the single payer system means the people have a big union taking care of their interest, in effect, putting that immense power at the service of many otherwise totally powerless people

[OhioBlue]

50. I agree with other posts -

The people who speak against it cry socialism and loss of quality health care for their hard work. Which is BS. I look at people I know who have labored their entire lives and still scrape by. However, you have people born into money, college paid for by their parents and their family "connections" get them that cushy job, who think they are more deserving.

It is also the insurance companies that propel the propaganda and will fight Universal Health Care to the death.

The thing I don't understand is why doesn't it come to the forefront that the U.S. already spends more tax dollars per capita on health care than Canada. The argument should be that we have an ineffective system and yes - the "socialized" health care systems still have a mix of public / private dollars.

[CTyankee]

72. I'm not sure that mix would work

wouldn't there be some challenges to the constitutionality of a two tier system? If everyone pays taxes to support the UHC and some health care is only for those who can afford it, wouldn't the more expensive health care (which might be something critically needed, not just cosmetic surgery or some such)wind up being available only to the rich? Hasn't the Canadian system been challenged on their own constitutional grounds?

[flaminbats]

56. Hillarycare would result in a Nationalized ID card..

it would result in rationing at the emergency room, it would result in the healthcare police deciding who lives and dies, it would result in government bureaucrats writing our prescriptions, it would be funded with a cigarette tax resulting in a 1920's style black market, doctors would also move into the black market, it results in an entire generation of publicly-funded Kevorkian style doctors, we would all be herded into HMOs, people could no longer pay for their healthcare, people who don't take their medicine or try to pay for something better would be arrested and sent to healthcare court, and America would no longer have THE GREATEST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD!!!

I've heard some of the most insane arguments against healthcare reform, and also extremely intelligent ideas on making healthcare universal. But Republican leaders have never provided any justification for allowing insurance companies to deny coverage for those with medical problems, and who most need it! I have never understood how people can call themselves prolife, but oppose healthcare for all taxpaying American citizens!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

75. Just remember that Hillarycare is now Gingrichcare too.

[Raiden]

57. A freeper once told me that

Canada's health care isn't nearly as good as America (and hinted that it was in crisis basically) and that lots of Canadians actually come to America to get health care...


:banghead:

[Robeson]

60. Freepers will say anything...

...what a delusional little world they live in...:crazy:

[leesa]

62. We are well below Canada in the WHO rating. Our healthcare system

is not very good compared to the rest of the world

[eridani]

130. There are quite a few Americans that go to Canada for health care also

http://www.healthcareforallwa.org/helpline.php

There has been much publicity in the past year about Americans who cross into Canada to obtain cheaper medications. However we hear nothing about the hundreds of uninsured Washington State residents who receive regular medical, dental and other health care services in Canada.

During our signature campaigns for I-725 and I-245, we were in contact with thousands of voters all over the state. We were astounded at the phenomenal number of Washingtonians who pay cash for Canadian health care services that would otherwise be unaffordable.

As a result of this surprising discovery, we began two projects. First we created a database of Canadian doctors, dentists and psychologists willing to accept referrals of low-income and uninsured Americans. As Health care 2000 becomes more visible throughout the state, we experience a steady increase in the volume of calls from Washingtonians who can't wait for health care reform to get medical attention. Second we are gathering testimonials from both American patients and Canadian doctors. These testimonials provide very useful documentation of the frightening shortcoming of the current American health care system and the high quality of Canadian medical care. Such stories do get the attention of the press and lawmakers, and help in our effort to educate them and the public. As citizens of the wealthiest nation on earth, Americans should be embarrassed to rely on a foreign power to provide basic medical services for its growing uninsured population.

[Warren DeMontague]

59. 45 Million Uninsured means there's "no problem here!"

Oh, and it's "socialized medicine". Plus, greedy, dumb-ass right wingers don't understand that if a homeless person gets hit by a car and goes to an emergency room, they end up paying ANYWAY.

[jbm]

63. my brother insists..

that it's because healthcare is one of the few 'I'm better than THOSE people because...' things that a lot of freeper types have left. If 45 million people are uninsured, but you're a freeper with health insurance, then that's absolute proof that God loves you and you're one of the good people!

If everybody gets healthcare, the freeper guy just lost his edge!

[candice]

65. the insurance companies who wouldn't be needed

...and my doctor accuses them of practicing medicine without a license.

[eridani]

67. Re the "socialism" argument

Just ask anyone why "capitalist" Taiwan has single payer health care and "communist" China doesn't. In Taiwan they don't think of it as communism, they think of it as a sign that they have finally arrived as a fully industrialized country.

And ask them how they feel about making only people who have fires responsible for the entire budget of the fire department.

[Disturbed]

68. Who is against it?

Insurance Corps., Pharm Corps, HMOs, Hospital Moguls, Doctors, RW idiots, rich folk.

[joeprogressive]

69. You have to ask yourself, who are the biggest lobbyists

Pharmaceuticals, insurance, oil, gun, tobacco

Therefore we are a bunch of gun toting, unhealthy, gas guzzling sheep.

The biggest misperception is we would be like Canada. We could utilize their strengths and overcome their weaknesses with our resources. We have the technology and specialty care that they lack. If we start now to build more medical schools that place an emphasis on training primary care physicians we would have many more needed family practitioners etc. There are thousands of bright and caring people turned away from medical school every year. Under UHC, the US could open federal medical schools that focused on prevention. Students would get a free education in exchange for serving so many years in an underserved area (like the national health service corps)

There would be a huge investment in the beginning but as the population became preventive minded instead of treating illness after it had progressed to a more expensive disease state we would save a far greater amount that would be sufficient to cover the cost for everyone.

The breaking point is coming because before it was a hard sell when the majority of the country that was insured voted to maintain the status quo. Now more than half of the uninsured are fully employed and a majority of the insured are having increaing difficulty paying their health insurance premium. Half of all bankruptcies today are medical. The end is near. Unfortunately, we had a parachute in '94 with Hillarycare. Now we will have to crash and rebuild from the ashes that remain.

[MsTryska]

73. as one libertarian told me......

"Healthcare isn't a right".



I called him a selfish prick for that one, and we've been on very bad terms ever since. :shrug:



what i don't get is why libertarians get so upset when you call them selfish. Hell a spade is a spade in my book.

[Nederland]

79. He is correct

Health care isn't a right. Its an entitlement.

You may see that as a small semantic difference, but libertarians tend to be prickly about those sorts of things....

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

90. Having roads and a police force is not a right either.

[Nederland]

91. Correct

And perhaps we should look at paying for health care the same way we pay for police forces--i.e. local control with some federal help. That might help put many people's fears of large centralized bureaucracies to rest.

[MsTryska]

99. well i would argue that it is part and parcel of

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, but that's just me.

[Nederland]

100. Big difference

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are things that you have until government (or someone else) takes them away from you.

Health care is something you don't have until it is given to you.

The distinction is important because the delivery of health care to all individuals implicitly places a burden on some set individuals to provide that care. By contrast, the right to liberty imposes no burden whatsoever on other people.

[eridani]

131. I would say neither right nor entitlement, but--

--PUBLIC GOOD, like roads and the fire department. If people who never have fires don't object to paying for the whole fire department which directly benefits only those few who do have fires, why should healthy people object to paying for the care of the sick? In both cases, individuals will rarely have the worst happen to them, but the worst could happen to anybody, so why not spread the risk?

[Cobalt Violet]

83. That would mean the terrorist have won.

:sarcasm:

[Bassic]

85. Simple

It doesn't provide enough money for the upper class and hospital owners. And so the american people ahve been led into believing taht it is a horrible anti-american concept.

Yay for greed it seems.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

86. If you're a Republican...

...it's the thought of Democrats controlling your healthcare.

If you're a Democrat, it's the thought of the Republicans controlling your healthcare.

At least with the HMO bloodsuckers you know where you stand.

:)

[one_true_leroy]

87. BIG PHARMA!!!!!

they make 1000% profit in this system. if poor people die, pharma doesn't care because poor people can't be profitted from.

[Sir Jeffrey]

89. Large, interested entities are staunchly against any change...

no matter what the benefit would be to the consumer. There is just way too much money to make in fucking over the consumer.

My problem is that they play both sides of the political spectrum, and the "party of the people" consistently bends to the will of their corporate masters every bit as much as their Repub counterparts. They're "Republicans when it matters most" (not my quote).

Here are the big industries involved (insurance, health professionals, and pharmaceuticals) and their campaign spending going back a decade.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=F09

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=H01

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=H04


Also, of the big corporations who are in favor of UHC, they are so not for altruistic reasons...most of them already provide insurance coverage for employees. Many large corps are in favor of what is called "employer mandates" (HillaryCare) which is a shitty idea. Basically, it forces all employers to carry private insurance coverage (read: quite expensive with no method of controlling prices) as it exists in the current market...which would bankrupt many small businesses...which would increase market share for large corps...which would result in a backlash against any party proposing such a solution (probably Dems). So the large corp would get both an increase in market share and a guaranteed pro-business run in office for years.

Remember: the system as it currently exists makes a ton of money for very powerful and connected individuals. Any other reasons given are secondary.

UHC would be very easy to do here and every study I have ever seen in peer-reviewed sources show that the US spends at least twice as much money on HC as Germany, Britain, Canada, Australia for a lousy return.

And the ridiculous idea that US health care is the best in the world is not supported by anything approaching intellectual honesty. We're first in some things, middle of the road in others, and dead last in many things that matter the most (like dollar spent for universal coverage for example).

[Totally Committed]

92. As soon as the Talibushies figure out a way of making money

for themselves, Halliburton, and Big Pharma from Universal Health Care, we'll all be insured.

Until then, no dice.

[Coastie for Truth]

93. $$$$$ MONEY MONEY MONEY-- BIG MONEY

Big Money and Lots of It

Health Insurance money got Harris Wofford defeated in Pennsylvania and got Rickie Santorum elcted

Health Insurance and drug company money got MISTER Bill Frist elected -- and he is sitting on more drug company and HMO and Insurance company stock then you can imagine.

The Health Insurance and Drug lobbies are more diffuse then the Auto-Oil mafia and IPAC --- not one target. The closest there is to one target is Karen Ignagni.

(Google Karen Ignagni):puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[question everything]

95. government and rations

First, people don't want "government" to run their health care. They either believe that the private sector is more efficient or they just don't want a government body in their affairs. Both, of course, are illusions, but these are the claims.

Second, they believe that such a system would limit their freedom of choosing a provider and would limit the extend of expensive treatments. Again, both are illusions as many have seen with HMO and others.

Third, they listen to horror stories from Canada about people having to weight for months for elective surgery and for those who come to the U.S. for their treatments. I've heard that the systems used in France and Germany are better than the Canadian and the British - but no one is bothering to look there.

Last, and I think that there is a kernel of truth there: such a system will have to ration treatments. The state of the art treatments are expensive. And one reason they are - in my opinion - is that this is the only area in our lives that we do not act as educated consumers. We let our employers select our health insurance that selects our health care provider. We rarely study the invoices and have no way of questioning any billed item.

But in reality even our current systems ration treatments. It is just that in theory we can select another carrier that would not - and pay for it. Or our employer will. Having one universal system will have to ration treatments across the board - for the rich and the poor alike.

The answer, in my opinion, is not to force all to use the universal system. The real world is that there are wealthy individuals who want to and can buy more of resources than most of us do. And if they choose to opt out and to pay for their own - fine, let them. Similarly, if, at some point you want to go to an expert and pay for this from your own pocket - that's fine too.

But we need for employers to get out of the health care business, similar to the way are are out of the retirement business.

I've often compared health care to our education system. We pay taxes to support our public schools whether we use it or not. And those of us who want to pay from our pocket for private schools, can do so.

Same should be with universal health care. We support it with out taxes and expect it for everyone. But if some of us want to pay from our own pocket for a private insurance or a private hospital - we should be able to do this.

97. healthcare

I would like to know when this country is going to grow up. Like big babies that can't think. Maybe private healthcare will fall of its own weight. I hear that even companies are struggling to pay for it now, like auto industry. Another rising cost is college tuition with similar ramifications. Only the privileged get access to what should be accessible to all. I think corporations and the government are running colleges a lot now too, just by keeping them dependent on their hand-outs. Recently a college in Wisconsin tried to keep out ROTC because they discriminate against gay people, and the government put pressure on the administrators, so they let them on campus.

[Old_Fart]

101. $$$$$$

It would put too many fat cats out of business.

[kwolf68]

102. OK

Even though I am Liberal and want "some type" of universal health coverage, the real problem with it is it severes the relationship between the person receiving the good or service from him actually paying for it.

If there is no inherent "cost" to the consumer that person has no incentive to be prudent.

This dynamic causes many of the problems we see with the Canadian health care system. If consumers (the American people in this case) treated a Single-Payer system as if THEY THEMSELVES really were paying for the service then it could work. But human nature being what it is, that is utopia.

The real problem with our system is too many people are left out of the system and that is morally wrong. In other words, we have "the greatest" health care system in the world, but NOT ALL of us can use it.

I am conflicted on this issue. I was an Economics major (Yes, I was a righty at the time) and I do believe in the power of a true market economy, however, unbridled capitalism is also inherently corrupt, monopolizing, selfish, and greedy. So I honestly don't know WHAT the solution is.

The closest thing I have come to is have a “National Health Care Plan” based on a sort of means testing. In other words, for those of us who can afford a traditional package we must seek to acquire one, either through our employment or other. For those who do not receive health benefits with their employment should be put into another pot and be “charged” a nominal fee for another form of health coverage. Those with no job and no health care would then be put into another pool under another plan administered, at least in part, by the government.

Sad as it is, we can’t remove greed from our nation. In fact, I say we keep greed and selfishness as part of the dynamic, but counter it with policies that are more moral and compassionate. Ergo, combine the “free market” system that gives us talented doctors and the latest technology with a “socialistic” system that allows all of our citizens to have the same right to “life.”

[Freddie Stubbs]

103. Do you want Bush and the Congress in charge of your health care?

:shrug:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

104. Uhm, I don't currently have ANY health care.

So yeah, even THAT would be an improvement, as well it would for the nearly 50 million uninsured Americans.

[Freddie Stubbs]

105. Do you think that those who have health insurance

would see it as an improvement also?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

106. Depends on the plan.

And I'm sure the other Americans might just have a say in how the policy is crafted. Believe it or not, I'm guessing that all of the people that would draft the law would want to keep or enhance their current quality of health care.

[Telly Savalas]

129. By that argument, we should abolish the entire federal government.

[SeanQuinn]

107. Money. Money. Money. nt

[Ron Mexico]

108. "Ask a few Canadians about their system"

I have. I'm married to one and have plenty of her friends drop by every year. The list of things not covered grows province-by-province every day. For one of them, correcting his bleeding ulcer was "elective" surgery that he had to come down here to get taken care of. The BC courts just excused the government from covering autisim in kids.

My wife's friends tell stores about "sorry if you die before we can get to you" letters, waiting periods of up to nine and a half months for an MRI and of over a year for hip replacements (my mother-in-law can tell you about this) and how screwed you are when you hit 45 (thereby becoming a second-priority citizen) in most provinces. I don't need the stores, though - all I need is to see what I see every year - when these people come down to visit, they inevitably have at least a doctor's visit, if not a procedure of some kind.

I'd rather have no program at all than a bad one. Convince me that in a country of this size we can cover everyone without frequent benefit reductions and tax increases, prove to me that only legal residents get insurance, show me unequivocally that if I don't like a doctor I have the right to choose another one, demonstrate to me beyond any shadow of a doubt that I can use my own money to pay for health care that the system doesn't provide (that's against the law in most of Canada!), and maybe I can be convinced. Show me that if I don't want to participate beyond my taxpaying responsibility that I will NEVER have to, and maybe. If it's HMO care for everyone like it or not, sorry, but FUCK THAT.

If all you (not you personally, Vash) have is "trust me, it'll be great, no bills, freedom to choose any doctor, it's cheaper too," then count me out. I've heard so many times about how great this or that will be, but the government couldn't even run health care for the military properly - there's no way I trust it to effectively run a program for 300 people, much less 300 million.

Worse still, our side won't always be in charge. Witness the mess we're in now when even flu shots couldn't be handled properly. Look at that bloated Medicare "expansion" that Bush stuck us with the tab for that won't do half of what's promised at the three times the price it'll cost.

My checking "Democrat" on my registration doesn't mean I'll start drooling anytime UHC is mentioned. I'd much rather have no program at all than a bad one, and I have NEVER seen a proposal for one that would work well here. Canada's system is so faulty that Paul Martin admits they'll have to look for more private alternatives. "Universal" usually means "mandatory for all," and I don't trust our government to provide health care for the entire country. You should really go from province website to province website and get a list of what's not covered - and then tell me you'd accept that for us down here. And again, the list of things not covered continues to grow.

The worst thing is that once you go government, there is no turning back. We have no guarantee that once we get the White House back that we can keep it. The amount of damage that can be done in even one administration, much less two, by another type like Bush is staggering, and I don't want to be stuck in some mandatory health program with someone like him in charge. If Hillary wins, well, I want no part of what was proposed in 1993, either.

Sorry, but I say "help the poor, leave everyone else alone." My hatred of corporations falls short of my mistrust of the federal government. Putting it more bluntly: just because you can offer me rye bread with a fresh shit sandwich to replace the stale Wonder Bread shit sandwich I'm eating now doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer to hold out for a decent meal instead. If you've got a proposal that would work, though, I'm all ears.

[Bridget Burke]

111. More anecdotal evidence--from the other side.

A co-worker took early retirement to Canada. She & her husband had some health problems & could not pay for them in the US. Even with insurance. She had maintained her Canadian citizenship for just this purpose.

Must a plan meet every one of your demands to be considered? I'm insured at work, but costs have gotten higher & benefits lower every year. There are far too many people with no insurance & I don't even care whether they've got a green card. We are already paying for their care--often, when they have advanced disease & it's too late. Earlier care would be cheaper in the long run; I know that pain & early death mean nothing to you.

Unless a plan meets your needs 100%, you would prefer that there be none at all. Sorry, those of us wanting better health care outnumber you considerably.

[Ron Mexico]

113. No problem - just

show me a system that would provide better care to a country this size, and then show me how we get out of it if it doesn't meet its expectations.

In answer to your question, yes, a plan must meet every demand I described in my last post for me to vote for it. If I get outvoted, so be it, but I don't base my vote on thoughts such as "I'm going to get outvoted here, so I'll go the other way."

In the meantime, my wife still has her citizenship, but since there's no way we'll be able to retire before 45, it's not likely she'd ever let herself be dependent on it.

Lastly, just because I have certain expectations of a system before we commit ourselves to it forever doesn't mean that your bullshit cheap shot of "I know that pain & early death mean nothing to you" was anywhere close to warranted. You know nothing of me other than part of my stance on one fucking issue. I said I was for helping the poor, but just because I don't want to jump headfirst into a "we'll never turn back" system that failed my wife's family and friends doesn't mean that I look upon pain and death lightly, so don't tell me what you KNOW about me.

The co-worker who told me about this site, a Democrat who happens to be fiercely pro-gun, also told me that if you don't toe the party line 100% (in this case, "UHC ueber alles, no matter how it's set up"), it's inevitable that you're going to take some reactionary baseless horseshit from someone outraged that you're not willing to just agree with him or her. I figured he was overreacting, especially considering the civil conversations I had on this topic with people like Pithlet and Vash yesterday (perhaps it was our conversation that inspired this very thread!), but then I ran into you. Not all Democrats believe in every single thing the DNC does, and here's one that really doesn't want to spend money here if he's going to run into more people like you, so thanks for proving my colleague right before I bothered to donate.

Pithlet and Vash didn't agree with me, but they were cool and adult about it. In your case, if we ever do get UHC coverage, I hope for your sake that proctology costs are covered should you ever decide to do what I think you should do with your snotty bullshit attitude and baseless cheap shots.

[Bridget Burke]

117. If you were offended, I'm sorry.

But even some of us who are not "poor" see the need for an overhaul of the health care system. We have seen our own coverage become more expensive & less complete. And we have seen the effects of no coverage on too many people.

When a plan has been proposed, everyone should critique it in detail. Unfortunately, this is far in the future. Why are you so adament in stating that NO coverage is better than something that would inconvenience you? You are attacking a plan that does not yet exist.

My underestimation of your sensitivity brought out your vulgarity. Is that a fair exchange?

And anecdotal data is just anecdotal.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

120. I'm glad you got a good laugh.

After all, laughter is the best medicine.

[Ron Mexico]

133. If that's your best answer, then

the best medicine seems to be putting you on "ignore," whether you're capable of understanding sarcasm or not. It should be obvious that I didn't actually get a laugh or anything close to it out of what you said, and my hope is that your post was sarcasm in kind, but since you haven't been right about anything concerning me yet I have no idea what to think.

I read this "best medicine" post of yours, started to write a response, and decided to give it a night's thought - just in case I was overreacting. After a night's thought, I'm surprised that I was as restrained as I was yesterday. The last time I saw anyone like you on the Internet was when perusing the freeper site.

Your "I know you don't care about pain and early death" was so baseless, so uninformed and so stupid that the first thing it reminded me of was the freepers. I show some reservations about a Canadian system that has demonstrable problems (while still maintaining that we should help the poor!), and to you that somehow means I don't care about pain and early death. That's in no way dissimilar to the freepers accusing us of hating America and wanting soldiers to die just because we show some reservations about the war. It's in no way dissimilar to freepers accusing us of being pinko commies because we'd rather see tax money spent on a few social programs than returned to gazillionaires. It's in no way dissimilar to freepers accusing us of tin hat X-files bullshit for wondering about the fairness of elections that didn't go our way.

When I called you on your reactionary bullshit, you insult me with a non-apology and an even dumber definition of "fair exchange" - as if you could have possibly been even partially right about an astonighingly stupid and unwarranted assumption which you had no business making. Like anyone else with more than five minutes' experience on Internet message boards, I've dealt with stupidity and ignorance before, but the brand you throw around is heavily seasoned with the sort of arrogance that makes me want to vomit. No, laughter isn't the best medicine in your case - the best medicine is to make sure I don't read any more of your posts while hoping that my DU experience shows you continuing to be the exception rather than the rule around here. Have a nice life.

[flaminbats]

127. good point..better to ask a Canadian about Canadian healthcare..

and best to ask someone in the United States about our healthcare system. Those who currently rely on each system understands best the problems with each. But much of your argument has no factual basis.

It is also best to let those who are not insured criticize our system. I disagree with your argument.."help the poor, leave everyone else alone."

The people suffering most are the disabled and uninsured middle class workers, who are no longer able to declare bankruptcy because of debts caused by costly healthcare expenses. The same people who make it illegal to declare bankruptcy because of mounting healthcare expenses also think insurance companies should use DNA samples and pre-existing conditions to deny healthcare coverage to workers.

You claim "universal" means "mandatory for all". Kerry supported a universal program that allowed all the uninsured to buy into the Federal Employee Health Benefits program..an approach which even has the support of conservatives like John Breaux. But nobody would be forced to participate! Most importantly these "government" options, available to Federal employees and members of Congress, has only improved with time.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=111&subid=137&contentid=252792

Some final points..it is not illegal to pay for your own healthcare in Canada. In fact one of my relatives buys all her insulin and pump supplies, for nearly half the price in Canada as can be bought here! Also..too many people seek health insurance after they get a costly healthcare problem, and at that point the insurance companies don't touch them. Over time I believe taxes will increase as more babyboomers retire, young uninsured workers will not pay more for Medicare or Social Security..unless they get something in return! Universal healthcare is coming, the sooner we deal with this fact..the better our healthcare will be.

Instead of slamming healthcare reform, why not describe the plan which you think would help the most?

[Ron Mexico]

134. For starters, I have not

"slammed healthcare reform." I pointed out flaws in an existing system elsewhere and said I wouldn't vote for it. Shortly after that, in a post to Bridget Burke, I said I wasn't against reform - I said I wouldn't vote for a system in which everyone has to participate.

I didn't read all of Kerry's proposal, because at the time he already had my vote by default. If you could point me to a link, I'd be happy to read it now, though. However, I don't understand your problem with my "help the poor, leave everyone else alone" if you support the Kerry proposal which would, you claim, do exactly that. And although I admit not being familiar with all the ins and outs of the Kerry plan, I don't ever recall it being referred to as "universal." If the word doesn't mean everyone has to participate, what does it mean?

I disagree with your "has only improved with time." My coverage IS one of "these government options," and my choices shrink and get worse all the time. That's predictable, actually. You may recall that the government - both in Clinton's administration and the disaster that succeeded it - had problems with military health care worsening, and the numbers in the military are mandated by Congress and easily predictable.

But at no point in my post did I "slam healthcare reform" and claim that everything is great now and should be left alone. What I was trying to say is that we should be careful about what sort of plan we jump on just because we've been waiting for one so long.

Further: I didn't get your point about insulin pumps and supplies - is that what you thought I meant by "health care?" I meant that in Canada, it is illegal (well, it was in Quebec until a June Supreme Court ruling) to pay for private insurance outside of the government system even when you couldn't get care within the government system. By doing a google.ca search on key terms visible in this url ... http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&ned=ca&q=quebec+supreme+court+health+care&btnG=Search+News ...

...you get articles like this...

http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=d2988752-3ba1-4361-86cb-5a9481c6c675

http://www.mapleridgenews.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=46&cat=23&id=467699&more=

... and excerpts like this...

In June, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down Quebec's ban on private insurers, stating that patients' rights under the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated by the excessive waiting times they endure under the government-paid health care system.

"Delays in the public health care system are widespread, and in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care," said the judges. "The prohibition against private health insurance and its consequence of denying people vital health care result in physical and psychological suffering that meets a threshold test of seriousness."

Now if you're asking me to craft my own plan, I unfortunately don't have the time to invest into coming up with a thousand pages of details and exceptions. All I was saying is that I'm not willing to die on a waiting list just so that we can latch onto the first crappy plan thrown at us. My post does not mean that I like the way things are - it means that in my case, it would have to pass a series of checkmarks before I could vote for it, that's all.

I thank you, though, for not flying off the handle at me like someone else did for my not being willing to immediately jump a bad alternative just because we've been waiting for a good one for so long. After yesterday, the experience of civil dialogue is an especially pleasant one. The only point I'm trying to make is that any plan would have to pass all of my "checkmarks" to get my vote, and if it doesn't I'll wait for a better one. What Canada has, especially with its ban on private insurers when government care is unavailable and its ever-growing list of things that don't get covered, is absolutely unacceptable to me and I wouldn't vote for it, that's all. I just want to wait for good reform instead of following those who blindly state that what Canada has is ideal.

[durutti]

109. One not grounded in rigorous research!

Generally speaking, right-wingers (both lay and professional) rely on abstract models of how they think things are supposed to work. Emprirical studies supporting their cases are almost always shoddy or fraudulent. Examples are legion: the idea that minimum wage hikes cause unemployment, "facts" about the supposed benefits of neoliberalism, the idea that there are welfare queens driving welfare Cadillacs, etc. all follow this pattern.

In the case of nationalization or regulation, they generalize from the abstract principle that market pressures ensure business is always more efficient than government bureaucracy (a favorite bogeyman). The trouble is that it's demonstrably false. Lots of businesses are spectacularly inefficient due to monopoly and oligopoly, externalities (passing costs on to the public), biased price signals (the poor are always underserviced), the pressure to cut corners, and corruption. A good examination of the anti-bureaucracy mythology is The Case for Bureaucracy by Charles T. Goodsell.

Here's a good article on why government is more efficient than business when it comes to healthcare: http://www.monthlyreview.org/1204himmelstein.htm

[Cynot]

115. If you have good health coverage yourself, why sweat it?

A lot of people are selfish. They have good coverage through their jobs so as long as they have it, they don't care about the millions of others who don't. And after all, universal health care will have to be paid for by somebody and these greedy people don't want to pay for it because in their own personal lives they don't need it.

[Disturbed]

116. Amerika can afford to shell out..

Trillions of $$$$ to the DOD, the FBI and the CIA but it cannot afford to spend on Health Care. Bringing up Canada's system is a bit unfair because that country does not have the level of wealth that Amerika has.

[lavenderdiva]

121. interesting that you bring this up...

Mr. Lavenderdiva and I were having dinner with friends the other evening, when the conversation turned to politics, specifically universal healthcare. Now, these friends are dyed-in-the-wool Repubs, and while we love them dearly (friends for over 35 years), we definitely differ on our political views.

Of course, Mr. Lavenderdiva and I both support universal healthcare and wish it would be here already, as we have absolutely NO health insurance-- we just can't afford it, and aren't employed by anyone who provides any help getting it. If we get sick or hurt-- tough. Our friends both work for different oil companies, and are provided with excellent healthcare insurance coverage. We were trying to impress on them the necessity of universal healthcare, but they weren't buying it. I told them that every other civilized nation on the face of the earth has some form of universal healthcare. They countered saying that the coverage wasn't free (of course we knew that!), and that those nation's citizens paid more in taxes to cover this universal healthcare than we as Americans currently pay. Point being, that if universal healthcare is instituted stateside, our taxes would be sky-high. IS THIS TRUE? Then came the old argument that they would be waiting for months for appointments, and that Canadians come here to the U.S. for better healthcare than they are offered there in Canada, and when they can't get a timely appointment in Canada. IS THIS TRUE?

Mr. Lavenderdiva told them that they better start getting used to the idea of universal healthcare, as he believes it will be here in the U.S. within 15 years. U.S. businesses will have to embrace it, to remain in business.

Would someone please give me something to counter these arguments, plus some other information to help me put forth a better argument? I am all for universal healthcare, but I'm afraid I don't have a lot of facts under my belt to convince others....

[blondeatlast]

122. Some links here:

Physician's for a National Health Plan: http://www.pnhp.org/

Check out their links site for other great groups;
http://www.pnhp.org/links/national.php

American Medical Student's Association is very active in the movement:
http://www.amsa.org/

I just discovered this site myself, but it looks very helpful:
Everybody In, Nobody Out: http://www.everybodyinnobodyout.org/

Also, The Nation had a GREAT article in I believe the November/December (or thereabouts) 2004 issue about how business is coming around to the idea of UHC. If you get a chance, take a look.

[lavenderdiva]

123. thanks for the links...

I've read thru a couple of them already, and they have some good information there... :hi:

[NewJeffCT]

124. Canada's health care system has overhead that is like 1/10 of the US

It's from a Paul Krugman column, but private insurance costs have about 13 cents on the dollar overhead. Medicare is 3 cents and Canada's is about 1.3 cents per dollar. And remember, Medicare insures many of our elderly & sickest, yet is a fraction of the cost of private insurance.

Also, try the WHO website that ranks the US as having the #37 health care system in the world, and #53 in access to healthcare and somewhere in the 40s in infant mortality, behind Cuba & China (with its 1.3 billion people!. Canada beats us in just about every major category - life expectancy, infant mortality, child mortality, adult mortality, etc. In fact, the US is not in the top 10 in any major category, if I recall.

http://www.who.int/en/

[barb162]

128. yes, it's money

[Puzzler]

135. ...and no...

... there isn't a good argument against universal health care. All of the arguments against it are either:

1) False... as in "Canadians do not get to choose their own doctors". This is completely, utterly and tee-totally untrue. In Canada you can go to any doctor you wish. The only small exceptions being:

a) if a particular doctor can't take any more patients at the present time.(This has nothing do to with the system of health care. One doctor can only take a certain number of patients in any system.)... and...

b) if the particular doctor is a specialist, then the patient would most often need a referral from their GP. Again, this has nothing to do with the fact the system is socialized. The GP (or hospital) is in a better position to refer the patient to the correct specialist than the patient. But, there's nothing stopping you from choosing among the specialists, if need be.

Or...

2) The arguments against are based on the system being inefficient. However, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. It is true that in Canada's health care system there is waste and inefficency... but the waste and inefficiency is far far less than in the overly complex US system (or should I say systems?). The bottom line is that the Canadian system can be improved. But the argument for improvement is NOT an argument for scrapping the system... as the free-marketers like to opine.


The bottom line is that if you are Canadian, and working ANY job and need expensive surgery (like open heart surgery), you will get it! And you will not need to sell your house or go bankrupt. Universal health car in my province (BC) costs the average person between $30 to $80 per month, depending on their financial status.


-P