Americans do not want to pay for universal health care

[mudesi]

As a born and raised Canadian with American parents and family, I have a unique perspective on the health care debate.

Here in Canada, our health care system is "free". If I break my leg tomorrow, or I get diagnosed with cancer, or I have a heart attack, I need only take out my health card and show it to the hospital staff. If I want to make an appointment with my doctor for a check up, of if I have a cold, or if I have a fever, I need only take out my health card and show it to him/her. Despite many flaws (and make no mistake, our system is not perfect), it generally works and works well. The quality of care is first rate, and our population continually demands that it be better every election cycle.

We pay for our health care through taxation - The same taxation that finances the roads, the public education system, and yes, the military. And it is the military expenditures that I want to talk about.

My relatives (who live in New York state) are not Republicans, but they identify themselves as "red Democrats". They would rather have low taxes than universal health care. I've tried (and failed) to explain to them that they can still keep their taxes at the same rates and also have universal health care if only the American government would shift funds from the excessive military budget to a health care system.

The sad fact of the matter is that most Americans (including much of my family) would rather see their tax dollars spent on more bombs, more guns, more tanks, more planes, and more troops. The money for a universal health care system is there. It is being needlessly spent on a military-industrial complex that feeds itself through every new war or military operation.

In Canada, we demand that our tax dollars be spent first on health care, then on education, then on various other social programs (crime prevention, mass transit, and most recently, green technology), then on paying down the debt, then on infrastructure, and finally, on our military. It's all about priorities and how tax revenue ought to be spent.

On edit I'd like to say that it is mostly my extended family that would rather spend taxes on the military. I should clarify to say that I believe the American government does not want to pay for universal health care. However, I believe Americans need to voice their opinion much more loudly on this subject if the corporately controlled politicians are ever to listen. In Canada, we vote them out if they don't.

[BulletproofLandshark]

1. This American welcomes universal health care with open arms.

I'm sure a lot of Americans would agree with me.

[jhasp]

13. I'm sure that this will make me a minority around here, but....

I don't support mandatory universal (or single-payer) healthcare. Why? Because if you are taxed based on my health expenditures (and vice versa), then you have an incentive to have a say in how I live my life and I yours. For example, my wife and I have had 1 sexual partner in our lives-each other. Neither of us have ever taken illegal drugs, nor do we engage in any abnormal risky behaviors (we also eat very healthfully and exercise daily, yada, yada, yada). As we purchase our own insurance, our premiums reflect our lifestyle choices. Because of our income, under a mandatory single-payer plan, our health costs would increase, although expenditures should not (we don't spend a lot of time in doctor's offices. So, I get to spend more time at work to pay taxes so that you can engage in risky behaviors. I don't mind paying to help the poor, but I do mind paying extra to pay for others indulgences. I lot of people, myself included, likely feel that if I am paying for your healthcare, without exception, then I should have a say in whether or not you should be able to engage in activities that will increase your healthcare expenditures.

[Lars39]

15. And I'm sure you and your wife will remain perfectly healthy until the day you die.

You *do not know* what tomorrow brings.

[jhasp]

21. So, what's your point?

Insurance premiums are based on what is expected. I am expected to have lower health expenditures than someone who has unprotected sex with multiple partners, gets drunk every night, is 80 lbs. overweight, and skydives. Therefore, I pay lower premiums for the same level of coverage. Single-payer health plans that do not adjust for risk factors create a moral hazard problem (see FSLIC insurance in the 1980s and the resulting Savings and Loan bailout in the 80s for an example). Single-payer health plans that do adjust for risk factors will be seen as discriminatory and passing moral judgments.

[Lars39]

23. My point is that *everyone* belongs in the same pool, paying the same price.

Your outlook is more Libertarian than progressive.

[GoneOffShore]

37. You nailed it.

:)

And there's the rub. Libertarians would rather not pay taxes at all and then have everyone "pay as you go". If you can't pay, you die.

[jhasp]

41. So do agree that single payer creates a moral hazard problem?

My viewpoint is progressive in that I don't want Dr. Dobson to give Joe Sixpack a justification for peeping into your bedroom. If single-payer is passed, this is what WILL happen.

[LSK]

52. why?

I dont see where this is coming from.

[The Straight Story]

61. smoking for example - main reason people want to nail it is because it drives up costs

So when they get rid of it, then there will be something else they see driving up costs.

If we are all in the same pool it will create nanny lobbyists who will seek to make you and I lead a type of life they see as best for ALL because we are all paying into it.

[papau]

87. Canada does not have "nanny lobbyists" - but FreeRepublic sells the idea n/t

n/t

[The Straight Story]

98. We have em here on DU and in America in general (nt)

[Evoman]

99. Word.

I live in canada...we don't have these "nanny lobbyists" they speak of. Its pretty nice living here. In fact, we have LESS repressive drug laws here.

[berni_mccoy]

143. Republics *are* the nanny lobbyists, if they are healthy. They are the ones who do not want to pay

Taxes for anything, let alone health-care. Everyone for themselves. And if taxes go to pay for something, they have a right to stick their unwanted dirty noses in whatever it goes to paying for. Republics have no sense of community.

[LSK]

89. so ditch the whole system because of fear of nanny lobbyists??

Meanwhile everyone is one bad sickness away from bankruptcy and slavery forever?????

[The Straight Story]

97. Not saying to ditch it

Was explaining a potential downside to individual rights and freedoms.

I am all for UHC, anything would be better than what we have now.

[LeftishBrit]

128. Not at all sure of that

Many people want to ban smoking in certain areas because they don't like to breathe the smoke, or to have children breathe the smoke, or because of fire risks. And some people just like to ban things. Prohibition wasn't because of health costs, though excessive alcohol is bad for one's health; nor are such concerns the primary reason for 'wars on drugs'.

More generally, I am not sure that forcing people to adopt good health habits WOULD bring down health costs. Much health spending goes on elderly people, and people with good health habits are more likely to live to become elderly! I don't mean that governments would or should encourage *bad* health habits so as to reduce the cost of ultimate geriatric care! But just pointing out that it's not necessarily to the advantage of a cost-cutting government in a country with a National Health Service to ban smoking, drinking, etc. If it were, I'm sure that Thatcher would have done it.

[blondeatlast]

114. I do--sounds to me like the TAX-EXEMPT Heritage Foundation's press room.

Go to their site and read their position papers on UHC.

Sounds eerily familiar...

[Viva_La_Revolution]

59. hasn't happened in every other country that has some form of universal

health care, so why would that happen here? :shrug:

and by the way, we are the ONLY industrialized nation that does not have some form of universal coverage.

[Fovea]

78. Why is that not a problem in

any of the first world nations that have it?

Why? Because they are modern progressive nations.

[papau]

85. Moral hazard meaning getting somrthing for "nothing" - like the rich do via the welfare for the rich

laws and appropriations(unneeded overpriced contracts to their corporations) in this country?

[jhasp]

146. Kind of...

Moral hazard meaning that if I don't have to pay for the results of my actions, I will do what I please without considering the costs. I gave the example of Savings and Loans because their depository insurance was not risk adjusted, so they made very risky loans (which they make a higher profit on) that eventually went bad and the FSLIC program did not have enough funds for the bailout. To give you a personal example, I was about 80 lbs. overweight prior to getting a life insurance policy about 4 years ago. I found out that if I was able to get life insurance, it would be extremely expensive due to my weight, so I took 5 months and dropped that 80 lbs (which I have been able, thankfully, to keep off). Risk adjusted insurance premiums are a good motivator (but certainly not the only motivator) for living a healthy lifestyle.

[treestar]

77. What are the actual figures?

Nobody actually knows that, and there is no real proof of 'bad habits' causing disease, other than smoking or cirrhosis and how much would other peoples' indulgence cost you?

There are people who get lung cancer without ever smoking.

We need to get the morality out of it. He who never smokes, drinks, or fools around can get sick too. It's just an uncomfortable reality. Fruther, he or she will die also and only 10 years or so after the sinners.

Why be so concerned about it? Whatever you'd pay for universal health care would give you a peace of mind greater than worrying about whether others are getting what they 'deserve."

[jhasp]

148. But my existing insurance gives me peace of mind.

So why should I be willing to pay more for the same peace of mind? Let me run the numbers for you.

I recently signed a contract that will pay me a minimum of $101,000 per year for the next five years (the maximum goes up to about $130,000). If I am paying "my fair share" of 9% under a single-payer plan (I think it will be higher, but 9% is what is quoted somewhere in this thread), my annual cost of health care (not including any copays) is $9,090 per year at a minimum. I currently have high deductible insurance that costs $70 per month, has a $3,000 deductible and I pay 20% up to the first $5,000, and then the insurance covers everything up to $1 million, so my annual minimum cost is $840 for premiums and a maximum of $4,240 per year if I have a major problem. I currently take 2 prescriptions that cost a total of $8 per month (thank you evil Wal-Mart) and I visit my doctor once every 6 months for a general checkup and prescription renewals and the approximate cost of each appointment is $100. So my total expected health care costs are $1,036 and a maximum of $4,436 per year. The last emergency room visit that I had was 4 years ago when I got poison ivy in my eyes. The cost of that visit was $150.

For those of you saying that costs increase as you age-you are correct, and we have Medicare in place to handle that. Also I can take my savings from not paying the single-payer costs and invest it in a safe investment to cover my higher future costs. The current yield on a long term US bond is 4.81% (which is lower than the historic average). If I invest the difference between what I would pay for single payer and my expected healthcare payment ($8,064) for 10 years (I will be 42 then and my premiums will increase) I will have a total of $100,533 available for higher premiums. If I invest the difference between my single-payer costs and my maximum out of pocket for the same 10 years I will have $58,020 available for higher premiums.

It would simply be irrational for me to want to switch over to a program that costs significantly more than I am currently paying for service that won't be better than I am currently receiving (I have few restrictions on who I can see for my healthcare, I choose my doctor and my hospital).

[papau]

81. Indeed you don't expect to die - but you do - and not just at old age - this

sounds like a discussion with someone not aware of the founding fathers and their discussion of the "common good". Sort of UnAmerican and certainly not Christian.

[jhasp]

151. Thank you for you well-reasoned arguments.

I'm glad to know that I am unAmerican and not Christian. My chances of needing medical attention increase significantly based on personal choices. I don't want GWB in charge of my or your health care, because it also gives him say over my personal actions.

"So you got AIDS from unprotected sex? Well, you shouldna bin sinnin' boy! No treatments for you!!!!"

[BlackVelvet04]

22. and insurance companies charge premiums based on the whole group

health expenditures, so single payer insurance is no different. My insurance goes up every year and we never use it. So obviously I'm paying for someone else's health care.

Being as perfect as you are I'm surprised you haven't been crucified.

[jtrockville]

25. Premiums? From what I can tell, Canada provides health CARE, not health INSURANCE.

If we remove insurance companies from the equation, I think the costs of health care go down dramatically.

[BlackVelvet04]

You're correct......

I "misspoke" when I wrote single payer insurance. But the point is the same. Whether you are paying for insurance or have single payer medical care you still pay for others health care.

[jhasp]

What costs do insurance companies include?

Other than a small (percentage) profit, insurance companies determine rates based on risk categories of their insurance pools. Government won't make risk adjustments, so a large portion of the population will likely see little benefit (costwise) to a single payer plan. Canada and other single-payer countries have a less diversified population who have different attitudes about health.

(Disclaimer: My wife is Native American and used to work with public health non-profits and differences in cultures concerning preventative health care is staggering. She had to fight to get one tribe to allow her to give free mammograms on their reservation. When she did only a few women showed up. The same applied for the Hispanic population that she worked with.)

[LSK]

53. ummm the millionaire lifestyles of the Insurance Company execs for starters

[annabanana]

63. big advertising budgets... . . . .n/t

[Lars39]

66. It also depends on what kind of a hit the insurance companies

took in the stock market.

[papau]

86. nonsense - come back when you have have the actuarial stats- cultural -

differences result in minimal outcome differences -

lack of preventive health care - basic, very basic health care - not MRI or mammograms - causes bad outcomes.

Also I am an actuary and I know what I priced for - and the idea of tight pricing is LOL funny.

Getting a 55% loss ratio (55 cents of every dollar not going to overhead and profits) was hard to pretend to be the design criteria when getting states approvals.

New pricing has maintained the 15 to 2o cents on a dollar profit, but cutting out US clerical jobs has moved that 55 cents to 75 cents - still a long way from Medicares 97 cents.

[CTyankee]

138. Your second paragraph is an argument FOR not against UHC .

The fact of the matter is (and one you choose to ignore)that prevention and education are key elements in the UHC system. Prevention and education may be costly but is more than compensated for by lessening costs at the acute stage of illness, when health care is extremely expensive to administer. When people go without preventive health care and wind up in Emergency Rooms across the country, you better believe you are paying for something that could be avoided.

Your argument sags and falls miserably on this major point alone, not to mention some other, major issues (cost of fee collection, paper work, etc).

I'm glad you live such a healthy life. So do I but I can see beyond the tip of my nose on this issue...

[bread_and_roses]

142. Take a look at their ADMINISTRATIVE costs

Goddess, you spout a lot of nonsense and are woefully uninformed. Do some reading.

[jhasp]

42. Bull.

My insurance requires a physical every year (I don't have employer-provided insurance) and rates are adjusted based on risk factors. if you tell the insurance company that you smoke-you pay more (and they do test for it), if you are overweight-you pay more, etc. Many employers are now going to similar models, where you also pay higher premiums based on tobacco usage and fitness level.

[Connonym]

141. Risk factors don't tell the whole story

Your attitude is repulsive. Sick people deserve to be sick? That's sure as hell what it sounds like you're saying.

I have asthma. I don't smoke, I didn't ASK for asthma, I didn't do anything to GET asthma. Neither of my parents has asthma so it's not a familial thing either. You are healthy in large part because of LUCK. I wish I could get insurance but you know what? my asthma puts me in a risk group that gives me no coverage for my (prexisting) asthma despite HUGE ($800+) monthly premiums and only very minimal coverage on anything else.

Thankfully it's been several years since I've had an attack requiring hospitalization but you're insane if you don't think it weighs on me every time someone around me has a cold, that I'm not constantly aware that one major asthma attack might cost the price of my kid going to college. Fuck that shit. Human beings DESERVE health care. I don't want something for nothing. I just want a level playing field so I can play the game.

We could instead go with natural selection and let the weak amongst us die. It's unlikely that you'll escape illness forever. Being a smug prick doesn't offer immunity.

[dysfunctional press]

27. wow...what a shallow and nasty attitude some people have.

"live and let live" just seems to go over the head of too many people.

[Telly Savalas]

54. That's not entirely fair.

The guy is just saying that he doesn't like the idea of subsidizing unnecessary medical costs incurred by the bad lifestyle choices of others. The attitude expressed is "live and let live, but don't make me pay for your let living by footing me for the bill when your medical expenses are three times what they should be because you choose to smoke two packs a day, center your diet around high fructose corn syrup, and never exercise." To a certain degree, I sympathize with this attitude.

Nevertheless I still support single-payer universal health insurance. Despite the moral hazard, lower risk individuals still get more bang for their buck on several fronts:

1. Single-payer has drastically lower administrative costs, so the fact that you're subsidizing Homer Simpson is at least partially offset by the fact that a much higher percentage of the premium goes towards actual medical treatment versus useless paperwork and red tape.

2. You've covered your ass if you move into a worse risk class. That is, even people who make good health choices can still be struck with catastrophic medical problems. Once this happens, it can be a struggle to keep the low premiums that one once had. With single-payer this isn't an issue.

3. You're protected in the face of an unforseen financial crisis. In particular, if somebody gets restructured out of a job then under the current system they either lose their employer provided health insurance or can't afford the premiums if they're on an individual plan.

Not to mention a few other things:

Medically underwritten individual insurance and small group insurance is more expensive than large group insurance which can only be provided by a large employer. This stifles small business in as much as they can't provide as generous health benefits as a larger corporation.

Moreover, not all risk factors are consequences of lifestyle choices. For example, if you have asthma, you're going to pay more for medically underwritten health insurance even though it's in no way your fault that you have asthma.

On edit: And one more point. For folks that pay into large group insurance through their employer, the moral hazard the poster above is complaining about already exists.

[jhasp]

72. If your points are valid...

then why are single-payer programs mandatory? In other words, why is everyone required to take part? Shouldn't the benefits be so obvious that participation is voluntary?

[papau]

90. It is called anti-selection - the not yet sick kick the sick to the curb to get lower costs

the not yet sick can indeed get those lower costs - until they get sick - just once

So mandatory is needed because everyone thinks they will live forever and never get THAT sick.

[Telly Savalas]

93. For a couple of reasons

1. Like Social Security, there's an element of protection from poor youthful choices. One could opt out of the program when the perception of the risk is low, but decades later when the shit hit the fan one would be left with either the government bailing the individual out or with the person dying on the streets. You can call this nanny-statism all you want, but try convincing us that we should abandon Social Security.

2. Single-payer coverage doubles as social assistance. That is, not everybody can afford coverage so the state provides it. If you think it's acceptable that somebody doesn't deserve health care because the low paycheck they bust their ass to earn isn't sufficient to pay for insurance, then I don't know what to tell you. If however you accept that everybody should receive at least some basic form of coverage, then single-payer is the most effective means of achieving this for reasons cited above.

By the way, why should public education, roads, and fire department coverage be mandatory? Shouldn't the benefits be so obvious that participation is voluntary?

[eridani]

119. For the same reason that your property tax assessment for the fire department--

--is mandatory. You have to pay even if you never have a fire.

[NotGivingUp]

30. i understand where you're coming from.

i also do not like the door opening, even wider than it is presently, to people telling other people how to live their lives. there has been way too much of this lately, and it's got to stop.

[Der Blaue Engel]

34. I hope you are a minority around here

and in the country.

Your attitude is the problem.

[jhasp]

43. Why is my attitude the problem?

Should I want to spend more time away from my family, so that you can live your life as you choose?

[LSK]

50. because you base your opinion on a lot of false assumptions

Did you know medicare has cheaper administrative costs then private insurers?

[freeplessinseattle]

57. why would you have to spend more time working?

the point of the OP is that budget costs would be shifted from killing to saving lives.

[bvar22]

71. Do you really think you have that much control?

Under your system, ONE catastropic illness or accident will WIPE OUT everything you have worked for your entire life. I saw this happen to a friend's family whose mother developed Alzheimers.

You can control some factors in your life, but ultimately you are a crap shoot away from a drunk driver without insurance putting you and your family in intensive care for a month.

You have that much coverage?

[Der Blaue Engel]

82. Everyone else has already explained the way this works to you

n/t

[LeftishBrit]

47. Countries with national health services do not impose lifestyles on people any more than other

countries do.

At worst, some such governments may threaten to 'ration' certain treatments to discriminate against those with 'unhealthy' lifestyles, so that the latter may have to pay privately for their treatment. That is rare, and generally attracts strong disapproval. And in any case is no different from what many private health insurance companies do: they frequently charge those who 'take risks' a lot more in premiums.

For the rest, interference with lifestyle choices is far more a matter of the style of an individual government or leader. Blair is inclined to try to micro-manage everyone; but this is certainly not confined to health issues, and is not typical of British leaders. Dictating lifestyle choices seems to be associated much more with excessive intrusion of religious faith or other strong ideology into government than with socialized medicine. In fact, there are some areas where countries with National Health Care systems tend to be less 'intrusive' than others (for example, they are less likely to mandate vaccinations, which I've noticed is an issue that raises a lot of concern on the boards here).

Though there are problems with the way that the NHS, like everything else, is being (mis)handled by Blair, I am still very grateful to have it. Having to worry about paying a huge bill every time one is ill or needs treatment is something I could well do without. And trying to get affordable private insurance when you've had a 'pre-existing condition' since the age of 5 wouldn't be the easiest thing in the world.

I hope that the situation can be resolved in America. It sounds truly frightening for too many people.

[eridani]

120. Lifestyle choices = saving money = complete and total bullshit.

If 15% of the population accouts for 85% of the costs, all the clean living on the part of that 85% means exactly jackshit.

[LSK]

48. you are not describing universal healthcare, but something else

Of which I dont know about and would not assume would happen here.

[AllieB]

60. He's describing Social Darwinism

survival of the fittest.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

55. and if you get hit by a bus tomorrow

it doesn't matter how you lived your life before-hand.

As a nation, we already pay for single payer universal health care, and then some.
Just take the profit out of the system.

[truedelphi]

58. But you are in many cases, already paying for the crack whore

Who has contracted Hep C or AIDS - the bottom rung of our society gets free health care through AFDC, medi-CAl or other local state run programs etc.

And society as a whole is paying for this imbecilic notion that someone somewhere would be better off without our nation having Universal Health Care. General Motors moved away from the American work force because they felt that they could no longer afford to pay the cost of the American workers' heatlh insurance.

How much do we as a society lose when GM makes a decision like that?

The people who are suffering are people like myself when I could not work full time last year because I needed to spend about one day a week arguing with my husband's insurer over what they could or should do for him.

Also people with "pre-existing" conditions who are afraid of leaving their job because if they do, they may never get insurance again. (My daughter-in-law falls into this category. Her pre-existing condition is epilipsy -despite the fact that she has not had a complication from this disease since many years ago when she was a child of six.)

[shatter]

157. pre-existing conditions

you know the whole system is a scam when they (the insurance companies) decide whether or not to insure you - even when you're willing to pay their exorbitant fees. i wouldn't be suprised if they soon start screening people and denying health coverage based on your dna and conditions you "might" get. outrageous

[truedelphi]

158. Agreed -Also I just realized that the tone of my original reply

Makes it sound like I think that anyone on AFDC is suspect - that is very far from the truth.
(AFDC paid my way until my son was two - they've gotten their $ 7200 back many times since)

But those whose unhealthy habits are manifest are often on programs like that. We already pay for them. So why not pay for everyone with SIngle Payer

Oh that's right - itw ould mean the insurance company executive would not get his 400 X rthe average workers salary for a job that his secretary handles 60% of.

[mikelewis]

74. Universal Health Care doesn't necessarily mean free everything...

...at least it doesn't have to. There's no reason people can't afford to pay co-pays on visits and medicines. There's no reason that there can't be plans like the new Medicare plan that takes care of our seniors. No one was more skeptical of this new plan than I and yet so far the system doesn't sound like it's broken (that doesn't mean it isn't broken, I'm assuming no news is good news). If that plan works for seniors who are generally on a fixed budget and can least afford medical expenses, insuring the rest of America on a similar program isn't out of the question. There are monthly fees and co-pays and graduated programs. Naturally, if a person engages in activities that will cost the system then that person should expect to pay more. Smoking, alcoholism, use of illegal drugs... all these activities should require a higher monthly payment for specific levels of coverage.

[Fovea]

76. Good for you

Of course you realize you are virtually mythical in your almost compulsive virtue. How do you find the time to work in all the yada yada yada? Risky behaviors are not the only etiologic agent on the block you know. But thank you for blaming the victims anyway.

Are you saying all those slackers with type 1 Diabetes, Osteogenesis imperfecta, hemophilia, Cerebral Palsy, Burketts lymphoma, Cystic Fibrosis, Spina Bifida, Sickle Cell Anemia, neurofibromatosis, taysachs, Legg/Perthes, Ideopathic Scoliosis, Fatty Liver, epilepsy, etc. should have made healthier choices before they became a burden on your tax bill? And believe me, virtually all of the above named *hereditary* or ideopathic conditions are budget busters.

Which moral choices can guarantee that you, or your progeny are not troubled by such conditions?

BTW, you might check out your glasses. Because you seemed to have missed the initial premise of the poster, which was that if our politicians were making less stupid indulgent choices at the national policy level, Universal health care would be revenue neutral.

If you really want to get a handle on your tax bill. I suggest you consider demanding a small national defense force, and a military budget approx 1/10th the current amount. That would put us in line with the military spending of the countries that are currently kicking our asses in the so called global free market.

But it is easier and perversely more satisfying just to blame the sick, of course. If it helps, think of universal healthcare as no fault insurance for your loved ones who may be less virtuous, or simply less fortunate.

[papau]

79. Sorry Charlie - even without single payer you pay for idiots taking health risks 'cause they don't

take out insurance but they still get care - so where does the money come from?

It's your state and federal taxes that psy - via subsidies to keep ER's open, Medicaid, VA and Federal child care. Indeed 45% to 65% of total US health care expenditure is already single payer (the variation in % due to what you count as medical care).

[John Q. Citizen]

94. You already pay for the uninsured. In a single payer system they would pay in also.

In fact, you would save a lot of money over time in a single payer system. And so would the whole country.

America isn't competitive because we are being ripped off. our car manufacturors are at a competitive disadvantage. We are held hostage to the insurance gangsters who suck big bucks out of the "system" that doesn't go for healthcare. This costs everybody big time so a few insurance dudes we don't need can be fat cats. The only thing stupider than giving health insurance over to the government is giving it over to the insurance companies.

We already pay 40% more per capita than the next most expensive health care system in the world does. They have universal coverage, we don't.

If you don't see that we are getting ripped off, then there's no common facts to argue about. It's criminal neglagence. We have people who can't afford to go see a doctor. Lots of people. Unlike the next most costly system per capita where anybody can and does go see their doctor. Heck for the 40% more per capita we are paying, we should provide limos for transportation to and from the doctors office. We should have a system that's 40% better than those other guys, right?

[mudesi]

100. There is no basis for your scenario

Does your paying taxes to fund the road system give others an incentive to tell you what kind of car you drive, or how often you drive? What if you live in an urban center and only use mass transit? Why should you pay taxes for others to use the road or the highway? I believe your entire premise is flawed.

[ComerPerro]

107. disease happens, pal

[AZBlue]

117. So if I've planned for my own retirement, should I argue the end of Social Security??

You better hope you never lose your job(s) - or else you won't be able to pay your insurance premiums. And then where will you be?

[eridani]

118. Well, if your house catches fire, they shouldn't send a truck out--

--until you first complete a survey establishing that your house is wired according to code, that you don't let your kids play with matches, and that you don't store oily rags in the basement, correct?

Why should health care be any different than fire protection? In both cases, a small minority of people cause most of the expense. You are not likely to get expensively sick or to ever have your house catch fire, but these things could happen to anybody, which is why sane societies came up with this brilliant notion of spreading risks. How unutterably stupid do you have to be to think that the support of the fire department should be entirely up to only those people who have fires, or that the 15% of the population accounting for 85% of all health care expenditures should be responsible for paying for the whole health care system? Have you never heard of the concept of shared risk?

It's an unfortunate fact of life that some people would rather enjoy their sense of snotty superiority than to actually save money on their health care expenditures. They are ever so much better and nicer than that kid with the infected tooth whose mom didn't have $80 to get it extracted--he probably ate candy all the time and never brushed his teeth, the undeserving little punk. When he was hospitalized for septicemia, the hospital spent $120,000 in a futile effort to save his life. They think is a good thing to prevent society from giving the kid $80, and fondly enjoy their silly delusion that the $120,000 won't be coming out of their pockets one way or another.

[SoCalDem]

126. me me me me me me me me me-itis is what's wrong with the USA

When we get back to WE, we'll all be happier, healthier & wealthier :)

[Zodiak]

149. aint that the truth! n/t

[Greyhound]

129. Interesting attitude, unfortunately you are wrong in so many ways it's hard to know

where to start.

Since money seems to be the paramount issue for you, you probably should know that you are already paying far more than you would under the Conyers/Kucinich bill (can't remember the number right now, but it takes about 2 minutes to look up). This bill does not mandate your, or anyones participation, it simply makes it possible for the system we already have to compete with the private scams that you are currently paying way too much for, so check that out. It is not perfect but doesn't cost hardly anything and immediately makes health care available to everybody.

I hope that you are simply misinformed and not just another freeper playing some stupid game, if not, welcome to DU.
:kick:

[Bridget Burke]

140. Well, you obviously haven't had children, either.

Pregnancy & childbirth still have some risks. You can't be sure that every child will be 100% perfect. The little critters pick up diseases at an alarming rate--mostly harmless, but quick medical care keeps more of them alive than in The Good Old Days.

I don't have kids, either. But I don't mind paying a bit extra so they can get the care they need. (And go to school, too!)

Edited to add: In another thread, you state you've got two kids--both on Medicaid since you're a low-paid grad student. Some of the more judgmental would recommend you get better situated financially before multiplying--since some of Their Sacred Tax Dollars are going to your kids.

And I'm glad that your wife is on her way to losing 120 pounds. But she's hardly the paragon of good health you describe.

[xxqqqzme]

154. Wow - isn't that special and narrow minded!

I was in a health situation not unlike yours when in the blink of an eye, I was left paralyzed on my left side and had 3 broken vertebrae. My health insurance, after that auto accident - back seat passenger slammed by a speeding driver who lost control - became an expense I could barely afford $483/mo & that was 12 years ago. I had to get an attorney to get SSI & medicare.

Now mind you, I had never had any health issue, took no prescriptions, 2 totally normal pregnancies but suddenly I was a health risk although it was only broken bones & a head injury. I am soooo f*cking tired of people assuming their lives are just going to merrily progress w/o any adverse consequences. I thought that way also ONCE. Nobody knows what will happen when you cross the street tomorrow or get in your car to go to work. What pre-dispositions are buried in your DNA?

You hve no idea what will happen next year, next month or tomorrow.

[ThomCat]

2. You're right, it is about priorities.

It's sick that we pay more for military than the entire rest of the world combined, and most of that money can't be accounted for. It goes into the military industry black hole. x(

[Sir Jeffrey]

3. Not true...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E06E7D71631F931A35750C0A9619C8B63

"The poll found Americans across party lines willing to make some sacrifice to ensure that every American has access to health insurance. Sixty percent, including 62 percent of independents and 46 percent of Republicans, said they would be willing to pay more in taxes. Half said they would be willing to pay as much as $500 a year more."

[Toots]

20. And if the truth be told the cost would go down

If all health care was paid for by the government there would be much more oversight than currently is happening plus the cost of medicine would become much less, the government would demand it. People would participate in pre-emptive medicine. They would go in for annual check-ups and seek help at first indication of trouble instead of waiting until they have to go to the emergency room. Health care cost would plummet...Sometimes people can't see the forest for the trees..I know as a business owner that when I take care of my machinery, scheduled maintenance (oil change, filters etc.) and regular care, that my costs are nowhere near as much as replacing an engine or operational gear...It works exactly the same with people...

[Sir Jeffrey]

28. You're right...

without the govt involved you have no effective mechanism to control costs. That is what pisses me off so much about the watered down proposals we've seen over the last five to seven years. Providing tax credits, tax refunds, block grants to the states, etc. won't do anything about rising costs. It just guarantees that the insurance companies will get their money first (think of pell grants and student loans and how they affected tuition costs).

[Pharaoh]

4. yes our country is insane

k&r

[movonne]

5. Some say that American's don't want to pay for health care...others

say yes...

[Donnachaidh]

6. basing arguments on your neighborhood doesn't cut it.

Because there is a growing swell towards universal health care.

The last election proved that. And your argument about *Americans only wanting bombs* is just flat out WRONG. What it proves is you do NOT know this country very well at all.

[SammyWinstonJack]

145. And it still didn't stop him from using that broad brush, did it?

:eyes:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. I think if it were sold to people in terms of "never fight with an

insurance company again," you'd find more people in favor of it.

[napi21]

8. You are quite right. However, doesn't Canada have an arrangement with the US

that if they ever get attacked (for what reasonI have no idea) the US military will help them? The same with Saudi Arabia and many other smaller Countries. Isn't thatone of the reasonswe call ourselves a super power?

Personally, I don't like the idea, and I have to wonder what really would happen ifthere was NO super power. Pretty much everybody defend themselves. What have we always played the great protector????

[Bridget Burke]

136. Perhaps you could look up those "plans"

It would be interesting to see the details.

[pinto]

9. I do. (See your point though, if it's not the socialism boogeyman [Aggh!], it's the money.)

And it seldom gets mentioned, but Medicare *is* in many aspects a socialized health care program. To repeat my health care mantra, I favor Medicare for all.

[MAGICBULLET]

10. I never heard a valid argument

against universal health care. Is there one?

I find it so interesting that most republicans oppose this or stem cell research yet they consider themselves pro-lifers. That and their relentless support for capital punishment has always amazed me. To many inconsistencies with those freeks.

[Sir Jeffrey]

12. None backed up with facts...

the market based approach to health care has proven disastrous. It is remarkably inefficient and ridiculously expensive.

[Tempest]

19. Americans pay the most and get the least

When it comes to health care.

www.csmonitor.com/2004/0505/p02s01-uspo.html

[Sir Jeffrey]

24. Yeah, we pay DOUBLE what everyone else does...

per person and we can't even provide basic coverage for all our citizens.

The US spends over $5,000 per capita, combining public and private expenditures. Every other industrialized nation spends between roughly $1700 and $2500 per capita, but they cover everyone.

[sutz12]

29. Most common argument I've heard is...

it will screw up mine. It's all about mine, mine, mine.

[angstlessk]

95. I believe that argument is ...ME ME ME ME

I am young and healthy, why should I pool my young healthy body against your old, diseased ass?

[TahitiNut]

11. Which is cheaper? 9% of GDP or 14% of GDP??

Canadians pay 9% of their GDP for health care and Americans pay 14% of their GDP for health care.

D'oh!?!? (How fucking STUPID can people get???)

[papau]

88. And the Canadians live 2.5 years longer with child health way ahead of ours. n/t

n/t

[TahitiNut]

101. Yep. And for an example of how stupid people can be, just look above.

The FACT is that we're paying about 50% more than we would under a Canadian system yet there are people so damned fucking stupid that they make the 'argument' that they don't want it because they'd supposedly be paying for other people's "bad choices" (e.g. AIDS, even though that's not cited). Excuse me? What is it about "paying less and getting more" that's not clear? Unfreakingreal. (It has to take some really serious effort to be that fucking stupid.)

[papau]

112. I agree - I assume it is a full moon night or something 'cause folks are usually smarter n/t

n/t

[Lars39]

14. You are wrong...the majority of US citizens want us out of the war.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/13/iraq.poll/index.html

[ThoughtCriminal]

16. This American pays more for Health Insurance than I do in taxes

:rant:
The cost rises every year and the quality and choices deteriorate every year. For those who fear "Government Bureaucracy", I can only laugh. Private insurers have bureaucracies that equals the most nightmarish of Stalin-Era Soviet government. Our private insurance company decides what doctors I see, what care I can get and how much comes out of my pocket. They will go out of their way to find any excuse to avoid paying a claim.

And this was absolutely and by far the best insurance I could find in this so called "Free Market" because I am self employed instead of an employee of a huge corporation or the government.

If Congress had to live with the same insurance problems the rest of us did, we would have National Health-care by the end of the week.

[flyingfysh]

17. I don't want to hear about it

I'm tired of hearing about people dying because they can't afford a doctor. I'm tired of hearing about people losing their houses because of an emergency. I'm tired of hearing my relatives complain because they don't know how to handle someone who is developing Alzheimer's.

I would be happy to pay higher taxes so I don't have to hear these stories any more. With taxes, you get what you pay for. If taxes mean I don't have to hear about these tragedies in our own country, they are well worth it.

[Tempest]

18. That's not what the polls say

A majority of Americans want universal health care and are willing to pay for it according to polls taken when the questions are asked.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

26. How many great potential entrepreneurs are stifled because they

didn't want to strike out on their own without health insurance?

How many US companies use health benefits to hold their employees in virtual indentured servitude?

Depending on corporate america to provide healthcare is bullshit on so many levels.

Universal Health Care Now!

[sutz12]

31. How many Toyota factories got diverted to Canada....

because they have universal health care.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

33. Toyota? How 'bout GM and Ford?

[antigop]

106. How many people can't take early retirement and do volunteer work in the community? n/t

[AndyTiedye]

32. We Tried Taking the Insurance Industry on and It Nearly Destroyed Our Party

Back then, we had the White House and solid majorities in Congress. We lost.
We still have not recovered what we lost in 1994.
We are in no shape to take them on again now.

[Lars39]

35. Those of us with no insurance or what pretends to be insurance

would disagree. And there's a lot more of us now than there was then.

[kath]

103. no, that was the problem with HillaryCare, it KEPT the insurance companies in the

picture, and was too complicated.
In the intervening 13 years, the majority of the populace has become more and more pissed off with all of the bullshit and increased expense they have been dealt by the HMOs and insurance companies. I think they're angry enough at this point that they'd welcome a big change. Most see the ins. cos. as evil parasites.

[Jacobin]

36. They ARE paying for it already

Its just 'hidden' in extraordinarily high insurance premiums. When you go to the emergency room, they have to treat you. Those who can't pay are subsidized by those who are insured. Which is why you might see a $15,000 charge paid by your insurance company if you have a simple fracture for an emergency room visit.

[gollygee]

38. Have you ever looked into how much this country pays for health care?

it isn't about paying more, it's about using the money wisely.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

39. I've wanted Canadian style health care

ever since I first heard about it in the late '60s.

[JMDEM]

40. It's not all roses in Canada

I've experienced the best and the worst of both the American and Canadian health care systems.

In the US, I could not get health insurance for my pregnant wife, precisely because she was pregnant. I filled out the forms -- the company lost them for 3 months, then said I had to start all over again, but my wife was pregnant by then and NOBODY would cover her. I am absolutely convinced that the insurance company had this "accident" on purpose -- the rate of new wives getting pregnant quickly probably makes this policy. And it's criminal.

When trying to be self-employed, couldn't get private coverage in the US because at one time I had a prescription to prozac. I eventually had to settle for catastrophic coverage only. The thing that infuriated me was that I didn't really even need the prozac -- the doc was trying it out to see if it helped my insomnia.

After getting a "real job" with a company, I eventually lost my job, and when I could LEAST afford it, I had to pay over $1,000 a month in COBRA costs for my family. I had to cash in retirement funds to do that, then pay the tax penalty for cashing in the funds. (Double whammy).

Now, for the Canada horror stories. My wife has an intense pain problem caused by an auto accident. In Alberta, they refuse to give her access to a pain specialist. REFUSE. Or more correctly, she ended up on a 1 1/2 year waiting list, and keeps getting bumped back. She's been on the 1 1/2 year waiting list for over a year, and still sits at 1 1/2 years. In the meanwhile, she suffers excruciating pain every day, with no hope of relief.

MRI machines are so scarce up here that waiting lists for MRI appointments can be months.

I recently had to go into the hospital for a situation I had. The entire hospital is run full time as a triage. If you are critical, you get treated. But if not, you wait and wait and wait and wait. The guy that shared a room with me had to wait 2 weeks, in the hospital, for surgery. Because he was not going to die, they kept bumping him back. But he had to stay in the hospital so they could take him to surgery at any time. Amazingly, he was PROUD of waiting that long -- he viewed it as his patriotic act as a Canadian to help the system work.

Twice in the last year, the major hospital in the city I live in has had pregnant women miscarry in the waiting room after waiting for hours.

Every time I've had to go to the emergency room for anything less than a major emergency, the wait has been 7 - 8 hours. Most people I know just won't go to the hospital unless they are in deep trouble, and I am convinced that Canada (or at least Alberta) knows this, and cuts their medical costs by at least 1/3 by making it so hard to get treated.

There is a terrible shortage of doctors and equipment here. Why? I think a lot of the doctors move to the US to make more money. As far as the equipment goes, I'm not sure why. Alberta is awash in oil wealth. But it seems to be spent elsewhere.

To the best of my knowledge, you generally cannot sue doctors or hospitals in Canada. This does hold costs down significantly, but it sure allows them to get away with stuff that would never happen in the US.

Both systems have major problems. Americans need some sort of universal coverage, but it needs to be a hybrid of public and private, if at all possible. Perhaps the Government could work out a plan where there is a maximum people have to pay for coverage, and the Government catches the rest. I'm not sure...

Oh, and by the way -- my politics are generally very liberal. I DO want universal coverage for everyone. But my experiences in Canada say to me that we need to look very carefully at how it is implemented. It is not a cut-and-dried transition in any sense of the word.

[mudesi]

45. Of course, I'd expect that in Alberta

I have no first hand experience of the health care system in Alberta, but undoubtedly I would expect just the sort of experience as you have described. They don't call it "Canada's Texas" for nothing. ;-)

Sadly, conservatism is still alive and well in some regions of Canada...From what I've heard, at least, the conservatives have been cutting Alberta's health care system for years. (For the very purpose of trying to convince the electorate that a "hybrid" system is the only solution, no doubt...)

[Nay]

62. Agreed--from what I've heard, Alberta is the RW province.

[Pavulon]

65. I live in Raleigh NC

waiting time for MRI is hours..Pretty easy to get life flight any ware in the us.

The government in incapable of running a health care system. (imho)

They can fund the current system, but if they get involved they will mess it up.

[Spazito]

80. Hmmm, your experience in Alberta is very "different" than mine

and I wasn't even a resident of Alberta at the time (I am now). I was in an accident, not injured enough to require an ambulance but did need to go to emergency to be checked. I waited no longer than half an hour, this was in Edmonton, to be seen, was x-rayed, had a cast put on my hand and I was charged nothing extra, repeat nothing.

I went back to my home province at the time, B.C., was able to get an appointment with my Doctor for the 10 day check-up recommended by the Doctor in Alberta and was able to schedule a second appointment for the date suggested again. I, again, had my hand x-rayed, the cast removed and I was on my way without putting out an additional penny.

From my experience and those of my family, one of whom recently died of cancer in Alberta and who's care was incredible throughout her illness, I haven't ONE, SINGLE complaint about our system nor do any of my family and friends.

There is NO need for a mixture of private and public, the universal healthcare system in Canada works just fine, it needs tweaking on a regular basis but no major changes. I have found that those who most push the "private and public" believe in profits over all and know that the "private and public" is merely a back-door way to destroy universal healthcare which is the REAL agenda.

The majority of Canadians believe as I do, tweak but DO NOT make any major shifts.

[kath]

105. Thanks for your story - that other poster's account didn't smell right to me.

Also interesting that his hobby is "exposing voter fraud" - not ELECTION fraud, but voter fraud. Big difference. Voter fraud is what the right wingers squawk about, and they use it as an excuse for voter ID laws and other forms of vote *suppression*.

Have known people with experience with the Canadian system (BC) and the UK system. All have been quite pleased.

[JMDEM]

116. Are you calling me a liar, Kath?

First, it's very interesting that you don't like a message, so you immediately do an investigation on the messenger, then attack the messenger, not the message. Now who in the hell does that remind you of?

Second, if you think the Canadian system is so great, then why in the hell don't YOU immigrate up here and find out for yourself? I dare you to.

I've been up here for almost 4 years, and for reasons I don't want to discuss, am looking at probably another year up here. Our experience of the health care system up here has been one of sheer hell. You try taking care of a wife incapacitated by pain, with no expert medical help available. You try it. (But in all fairness -- we have gotten some help and haven't been bankrupted by that.)

If your mind isn't more closed than George Bush's sphincter, then YOU do some research on the situation.

I would advise you to do some internet searches on "Miscarriage" and "Calgary" and see what you come up with. Do some searches on "pain clinic waiting times" and "Alberta" and see what you come up with.

I would ask you to talk to ANY US doctor and ask him or her about US health care versus Canadian health care. They will cringe at the mention of Canadian health care. We were warned ourselves by our doctors to be careful. NOW -- GRANTED -- I almost went friggin bankrupt myself due to the fucked up situation in the US. So I am NOT defending that system either.

And by the way, isn't what I tentatively proposed for health insurance EXACTLY what John Kerry proposed in 2004? Isn't it?

I carefully worded my post to say that YES INDEED the US medical system sucks. I three really bad experiences I had with it. If I am such a friggin freeper, why would I do that?

I am just putting out a warning that Canada (or maybe just Alberta) is not the land of milk and honey in terms of health care. If you are serious about health care reform, research it a little, please!!!

[kath]

155. Sorry. That post was asshole-ish of me.

I apologize.

There seemed to be a rash of posters denigrating single-payer health care yesterday, and I over-reacted to that. Also, in the past, disinformation about the Canadian and British systems has seemed to get vigorously spread around in the US in order to quash talk of single-payer.

Sorry to hear about your healthcare nightmares in BOTH countries.

It really chaps my ass that citizens in the US (and perhaps Canada as well) get unequal treatment based on what state they live in. Why the hell should the poor and children be treated so much worse if they live in someplace like Mississippi or Alabama vs., say, California (or Calgary vs BC or Ontario)??? They are all residents of the same country, and should be given equal treatment.

[Spazito]

150. You're welcome, I have posted my own experience and that

of my family and friends more than once because of the few who try to push the "private and public" healthcare meme after trashing our current system. Calgary is the hub of the privitization crew who are trying to destroy Canada's universal health care system and it is simply because of their belief in profit over all.

Calgary's population growth has been enormous in recent years so there are some shortages in support staff but, again, the family member who recently died was in Calgary and was able to receive everything she needed, including home care, specialized testing, etc, without any problems.

Here is a link to a major report from a Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada that was done in 2002, I think this might be helpful for delving out the facts and how Canadians feel about our system:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/care/romanow/hcc0094.html

[kath]

156. Thanks for linking to that report - it's very informative.

[papau]

92. One does not sue doctors in the EU - yet their health care is better than ours- so getting even does

not improve health care.

Perhaps EU like care for those disabled by a bad health outcome is a better way to go.

[MistressOverdone]

44. So right now I pay about 500 dollars a months

for my two-person HMO, which runs about 1500. My school district pays the rest. With universal health care, do you think my taxes will increase much more than what I pay? Facing retirement, that would not be too great for us.

And I realize you have no answers..just asking your opinion.

Also, would universal health care mean all the insurance companies and HMO's would go out of business? Would that be a good thing for our economy? And do we trust the federal government enough to give them this responsibility?

Those are my questions.

[MN ChimpH8R]

46. I think it was Thom Hartmann who recently pointed out that

the average insurance company's overhead and administrative costs (which includes, of course, obscene salaries to top management and profits for their Repig shareholders) is about 30%. Medicare, on the other hand, devotes 3% of its expenses to administrative costs. Wow, that wonderful private sector sure is more efficient than bad ol' government, isn't it?

A few years ago I worked with a woman who was then married to a very Republican radiologist. She told me that her hubby was for single-payer health care on the Medicare model. His reasoning was simple: there would only be one type of forms for his office to deal with and one set of reimbursement rules, unlike the endless differences among various insurance companies. His guess was that he could reduce expenses in his office by 35% and better serve his patients under a single-payer system. Apparently he was not the only MD to think this.

Medicare for everyone who wants it!

[Canuckistanian]

56. Ding ding ding! There's the magic word I've been looking for.

Profits.

In our Canadian single-payer health insurance scheme, there is no profit built in to the system.

Everyone gets paid, from the doctor to the orderly to the administrator. But the director (the government) doesn't take a profit.

That's where your system ends up costing twice as much as ours.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

83. and everyone who doesn't want it

is free to fend for themselves.
Guarantee you that those people will be screaming to join within a year. :)

[TahitiNut]

104. Yep. And for every dime of unnecessary overhead cost, at least a penny is profiteering.

It's layers upon layers of overheads and in every layer some 'owner' takes a profit. It's not just cost reimbursement - it's profiteering at every level ... like a VAT to the wealthy. There's absolutely no incentive to take those overheads out of the system when the people who own the system get wealthier due to those overheads.

[rman]

131. yes, and one of the arguments for privatisation was that 'burocracy' is inefficient

We don't hear that argument very often any more, for one because by now almost everything has been privatized, but also because people would immediately realize that privatization has not exactly increased efficiency - except where corporate profits are concerned... but that was not the kind of efficiency that most people had in mind.

[Greyhound]

133. In my former (and maybe future) career, almost half of my time was spent with medical workers,

over the years I've personally spoken to, literally, thousands of medical professionals. In all that time I have yet to meet one single person that didn't want to get the insurance industry out of the field, in fact, the handful (maybe 50 and that's being generous) that have spoken against a universal single payer system were those that profited from the current clusterfuck.

The patients hate it, the practitioners hate it, even the facility administrators hate it. So tell me, when everybody that deals with it says it is detrimental to them and only one faction benefits from it, where do you think it is broken?
:kick:

[Tom Joad]

49. Yes, they want to support Insurance companies! Nothin' makes them feel better than the thought of

rich insurance executives.

[sandnsea]

51. Kerry was beat to hell on cutting military spending

And yet people on this thread deny the reality of the real "Third Rail", the military budget. Which protects shipping lanes for commerce, not US.

[WinkyDink]

64. I'll bet the Defense/Pentagon budgets could more than pay for UHC, with

PUH-LENTY left for national security.

[Greyhound]

135. Hell, 10% of our "defense" budget could give the WORLD

adequate diet and general health-care ($13 Billion)

reproductive health-care ($12 Billion)

Clean water and sanitation ($9 Billion)

universal education ($6 Billion)
:kick:

[shadowknows69]

67. As an American I'd rather have my taxes go to U health care than defense

Let the chicken hawks pay their taxes to buy guns. Otherwise I wish someone would give me the tank I've purchased by now so I could force a doctor to see my family.

[lovuian]

68. We will have Universal Health it is inevitable

our system is Broke already

[tuvor]

69. In BC, you're required to pay a monthly premium.

I think it's about $45/month. If you're lucky, your employer pays your premiums.

[sendero]

70. Guess what..

... we are ALREADY paying for universal health care, via the Emergency Room.

Via a cluster-fuck of insurance company ripoffs.

What Americans DON'T want to do is spend 25% of every health care dollar on paper shuffling that should cost about 5%.

And while we're at it, Americans are SICK of paying full retail for pharmaceuticals when the vendors are all too happy to negotiate a discount for every other country.

[never cry wolf]

73. Send them this link: Fighting for the welfare state

If a similar poll was taken in America I wouldn’t be surprised if the figures would be just the other way around. For when people in a society do not have basic human rights taken care of - such as equal access to free health care, education, nursing, child care, unemployment security etc. - they will forever feel they need more money to pay for all the bills they run up for similar services. (Just as they waste precious time and mental energy constantly shopping around to get cheaper deals.)

Especially since these bills will usually be much higher than those the Europeans pay via their taxes. Cure generally is more costly than prevention - not to speak of all the unnecessary bureaucrats (such as health insurance agents) you employ in America just to sit around and make decisions on your health - decisions which in every other country in the world would be called "undemocratic". For no Free Universal Health Care system would ever be so cruel as to decide that you can’t get all the health care you need because you are too fat, have smoked too much, have AIDS, is a bartender - and many similar reasons given in America today to deny people access to health care.

American media often counter that this will lead to waiting lists - amazing when you consider the American waiting lists of 35% Americans who go completely without health insurance. We certainly also do have a lot of internal criticism of what it really is - namely not enough welfare state!!! - and all the parties in the last election promised to end them. Unlike the American health care mess caused by profit oriented private ownership and control over this basic human right, our shortages are at least under democratic control. It is all a matter of the popular will to pay more taxes - which means less or cheaper vacations - or taking the money from some other departments. In other words: something we can vote on.

Yes, Europeans pay twice as much in taxes as Americans, but they don’t pay twice as much for the same services provided!!!! This is why they have so much money to spend on their long vacations around the globe. In most of the popular, exotic countries such as Nepal, India, Vietnam, Africa etc. I today meet far more Danes than Americans - even though there are 50 times more Americans on the planet.

http://www.american-pictures.com/english/racism/articles/welfare.htm

[Cleita]

75. Your relatives like most Americans have been propagandized

by the corporate health care industry and war machine to vote against their best interests. Yet, polls show that 70% of Americans want NHC similar to Canada's. It's around election times that the publicists and lobbyists go into full gear spreading lies and disinformation about NHC in other countries. Here is a website that might answer many of their questions if they bother to read all the articles in it. The organization is a group of Harvard doctors who call themselves Physicians for a National Health Plan.

http://www.pnhp.org

I really wish that the candidates here would take some of the doctors from PNHP on the campaign trail with them to popularize their findings and knowledge. It's the only way IMHO to counter the corporate spin machine.

[AliceWonderland]

84. Canadian who became American permanent resident here

I spent most of my life in Canada, and I have no complaints about the health care system. I lived in eastern Ontario, Quebec, and eastern Canada. I had a surgical procedure when I was 25, plenty of prescriptions, and lots of routine gyn appointments. The only bad thing I can say about the Canadian health care system is, it doesn't save you from unfriendly doctors (had one or two of those).

I don't worry about my aging mother in Newfoundland getting proper medical care -- I know we won't be ruined if she is every injured or ill.

I never knew what it was to be frightened of an illness or an injury until I came to live in the U.S. I'd heard of that fear, but never really understood it. Now, my SO and I discuss it, and I worry how we would take care of him if his health failed. It's an awful feeling... and I even have minimal insurance.

It's a completely different paradigm. While social programs in Canada are certainly under attack, I could not imagine even explaining to my mother what people down here face.

[bobbolink]

91. Try reading POLLS, rather than shooting from the hip, or listening to your family.

Over and over and over, POLLS show that the majority of USians, yes, even Republicans, would favor higher taxes in order to have Universal, Single Payer health care.

However, just like the majority of USians want this country out of the damned occupation, our dear leaders can't figure it out.

WE WILL HAVE GOOD HEALTH CARE IN THIS COUNTRY WHEN WE ALL DEMAND IT.

[ComerPerro]

109. I have to agree with the OP on this one, most people seem to feel

that they will be paying more for other people to have free health care.

[Warren Stupidity]

110. Odd that: poll data says yes to UHC.

"Presidents from Harry Truman to Richard Nixon and, most recently, Bill Clinton, have proposed various plans for universal coverage, but all have been defeated.

Still, Americans consistently tell pollsters they embrace such an idea.

"We have always seen strong support for the goal of universal coverage but never seen consensus on how to get there or a willingness to pay the price," says Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

That division was reflected in a wide-ranging poll of 1,201 Americans' views on the nation's health system sponsored by USA TODAY, ABC News and the Kaiser Family Foundation. The nationally representative sample has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Fifty-six percent say they would prefer universal coverage to the current system, which relies on a mix of voluntary efforts by employers to offer insurance and a mix of government and private insurance options for those who don't get coverage through work. The latest Census Bureau data estimate 46.6 million are uninsured."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2006-10-15-universal-usat_x.htm

[ComerPerro]

111. basically your link says that Americans want it, yes, but it never happens

know why? Cause they don't want to pay for it.

[Warren Stupidity]

113. So you say.

My explanation: a simple easy to understand plan has not been offered.

At any rate, the polling data indicates that americans do in fact want universal healthcare.

[ComerPerro]

115. want, yes. Want to pay for, no. The Republicans realize this. Watch them campaign.

The Republicans know exactly how the voting public operates.

They want good schools, they want health care, they want services for the sick and the elderly, they want to help the poor.

They just don't want to pay for it.

They don't want to pay any taxes.

And the Republicans, what do they do?

They tell the American voting public that they can have all those things, all the social services and of the highest quality, all can be done. And they tell them that they won't have to pay taxes, either.

Sadly, the public is stupid enough to believe it.

[RB TexLa]

123. Bingo

Just like a poll consisting of....


Do you want peace in the world? 95% yes 2% no 3% undecided

What if it costs the lives of 65,000 Americans every year to sustain it? 95% no 3% yes 2% undecided

[Lydia Leftcoast]

153. They were defeated by Congresscritters who had been bought by the

insurance companies and by insruance companies running scare advertising.

[bobbolink]

152. "Most people"? Or just YOU?

Read the polls.

Rather than projecting your own fears.

[Atman]

96. We spend THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS A YEAR for health insurance.

Shitloads of money. I don't understand this lame-assed argument. If all of us paid into a common pool -- taxation -- then my several-thousand-dollar-a-year health insurance bill would GO DOWN. I'd PAY LESS. How is this hard for people to understand? Do they think their health insurance is now FREE? Why is it acceptable to pay more into a common fund via your employer than to pay into a larger common fund which will not only lower your monthly cost but also help the community and contribute to the greater good...

Oh...never mind. "The greater good." We can't have that in America. Doing anything that benefits the nation as a whole is communist according to the GOP and the Fox News dwellers. We're all in it for ourselves on this rock. Piss off and die.

.

[mmonk]

102. We're paying for healthcare both in taxes and premiums.

In fact, we're paying more per capita than other countries and 45 or so million are still uninsured. We're subsidizing the hospitals for taking care of the uninsured at most times, on high cost weekends and emergency rooms.

[Atman]

108. Bingo. Americans are stupid and selfish.

Did I mention Ignorant?

This ain't rocket science. We're already paying WAY MORE for health insurance than we need to be paying. In fact, the very principle of how insurance works is being ignored by the nay-sayers; a larger pool of payers lowers the cost for everyone. But again...we've been trained to be selfish.

.

[NewJeffCT]

134. You're 100% right

Taxes will increase, but you would no longer have to pay health insurance premiums. In the long run, you would certainly pay less because 25% or so of the health insurance costs are due to pushing paper. The corresponding Medicare cost is about 3%, and Medicare now is generally for the elderly and/or the infirm - the riskiest & most expensive portion of the population.

I believe the average family of four is paying at least $5,000 to $7,000 a year out-of-pocket for their medical care in the form of health insurance premium, deductibles, etc. If the person with insurance has a job at a company that subsidizes health insurance premiums, it will also be a huge boon to those corporations, as that expense would be greatly reduced: Imagine a company with 1,000 employees that is subsidizing $5,000/year of health insurance costs per employee. Say 75% of the employees take the insurance (others opt for no insurance, or get it through a spouse or other source) - that is 750 employees x $5,000 = $3,750,000.

[eridani]

121. We do NOT have to pay more to get universal health care

Why do people think that insurance premiums of $500 are good, but a tax of half of that is bad? It's coming out of your pocket one way or another. As Kucinich always says "We are already paying for universal health care, we just aren't getting it."

[Mind_your_head]

122. When presented this way....who in their right mind

would prefer the military-industrial complex (duh! what's dat! they say....) over health care for all....

I think it harks back to the folks that don't even know understand about how the military-industrial complex, et al....is SUCKING the life blood of our nation.

[Nutmegger]

124. If Americans can be talked into an illegals occupation

that is leaving us indebted to the Chinese, convincing the American people about single payer health care should be an easy chore.

[orleans]

125. hey free bird--welcome to du!

(free bird=term of endearment combined with word play on lynyrd_skynyrd)

[leftofthedial]

127. Americans ARE paying for it

we just aren't getting it


we pay exorbitant amounts of money for health care and receive mediocre care

meanwhile, small businesses and individuals are going bankrupt and 45 million Americans have no coverage at all.

[EFerrari]

130. That's one of my favorite Dean quotes.

"American are paying for universal health care, they just don't get it."

[helderheid]

139. I thought it was the Kooch (maybe they both said it?)

:hi:

[EFerrari]

147. Maybe. We should ALL say it.

:hi:

[Vinca]

132. My tax rate would need to be 75% to match what health insurance

premiums would cost me IF I COULD AFFORD THEM.

[helderheid]

137. Aren't we ALREADY paying for it and just not getting it? n/t

[qwlauren35]

144. Not all Americans...

but admittedly, too many Americans.

There was a time when military subcontractors provided a major portion of relatively high paying American jobs in some parts of the country. Those who worked for them are part of the faction that supports military spending.

Someone should do a study on what jobs might be expanded if we had universal health care, and maybe that would open some eyes. The one interesting thing about "hands-on" health care is that it CANNOT BE SENT OVERSEAS!!!!! True, pharmaceutical manufacturing can, but the actual nurturing and diagnosis of our sick and injured cannot be. And that means jobs.

Don't quite understand why nobody gets this. Probably because we have taxation phobia.