so, why the f*ck don't we have universal healthcare?

Because you touch yourself at night.

/thread

I don't think everyone should have it...
it wouldn't really be free..we'll just pay for it through taxes. and you know what universal health care means.... Mexicans in the U.S. get it too...The ones that aren't legal..and you'll be paying for it. I don't know about you, but I don't want to pay for health care for an illegal immigrant. and no offense to Mexicans because I know many hardworking Mexicans that came here illegally, but are now legal
....and it's not just Mexicans and other people that come here illegally, it's the smokers and the alcoholics and the other people that do harmful things to their bodies. You'll be paying for their "free" health care.

Call me mean, call me heartless..I don't think I'm being to mean, am I? I think the cons outweigh the pros..

also...How many doctor-to-be's will there actually be once there's universal health care? There wont be many. I bet they'll get paid less. And there are only so many Doctors to begin with. There's no way we could have universal health care without jeopardizing so much else. There will probably be longer waits..(and I don't mean just a few hours) and Patients will probably be treated poorly.

I don't think it's a good idea...and if Obama decides to do it he should at least make it so not everyone has it..only the people that really truly need it..but that would also cause problems because people will start to lie and say this and that and blah blah blah..that's just too much to deal with. It would be extremely difficult to get it because they'll have to sort out the dishonest people from the people that truly truly need it.

1. we already pay for illegal immigrants, if we didn't we wouldn't have emergency clinics.
2. generally, a universal care service would only be available to citizens. so, no, illegal immigrants would not receive it. for example, the current bill being proposed has a provision which explicitly excludes illegal citizens from receiving coverage under the public program.
3. over a ten year plan, we would need to raise taxes only of those persons making $280,000 or more a year. & of joint incomes ranging between $350,000-500,000 only a 1% surtax will be applied. those making over one million dollars a year will be taxed the maxim surtax, 5%.
4. if we don't control the cost of healthcare now, we will be paying more for it later: over the last decade, healthcare premiums have doubled &, even further, the growth of healthcare costs have risen above the growth of GDP.
5. you sort of are being heartless; some of us think that decent healthcare is a human right.
6. doctors will be paid less, but as doctors are already handsomely compensated for their work, they will still maintain a position of tremendous comfort. best of all, they will finally be able to do their job, without having to wait for approval from an insurance industry. doctors go to school to help people, not to make money --- or at least, that's the way it should be.
7. in america, we wait longer for services than people in germany and in france (both of which have universal healthcare).
8. the world health organization has ranked the quality of america's healthcare as 37. this means that the WHO has identified that there are 36 systems currently operating @ a higher quality than our own system. a vast majority of those systems have a fully integrated single-payer system, including france, norway, germany, and italy.

less town hall meetings more healthcare reform plx

^ Regardless of the debate, there is nothing wrong with the town hall meetings, in my opinion. Why shouldn't we listen to the people's thoughts on the bill? I don't think we should pass such a monumental bill as universal health care without hearing what people think. I mean, Congress didn't even read the bill fully, did they????

apparently you haven't actually seen one of these town hall meetings; they're just a bunch of ignorant and ill-mannered drones barking @ people who are trying to formulate a legitimate dialogue on the matter. they aren't expanding discussion, they are squashing it. to put it more succinctly, there is nothing productive about hissing and booing.

Obama wants to make all illegal immigrants legal...did I mention that?

and I don't wait long for services.
The only problem I have ever had is finding a doctor that will take my insurance that wasn't 30 miles away, but I lived in a small town, now I don't. now that's not a problem.
I just don't go to waterman hospital...because after that merge they just aren't that great anymore. XD



"5. you sort of are being heartless; some of us think that decent healthcare is a human right."
DECENT health care, yes...not free. I don't think it should be free, because NOTHING it technically free, we'll still have to pay for it. and you really think the upper class people will get the get a tax raise? REALLY? I think they JUST NOW started having to pay as much as the middle and lower class people..and they're COMPLAINING...at least in my town they are, they have their protests and what not. The middle and lower class families will get stuck with the tax increase because that's just how it is.

Remember guys, dissenting opinions are healthy for a functioning democracy unless you disagree with me.

Obama wants to give illegal immigrants OPPORTUNITES to become legal, by taking the test and yadda yadda to gain citizenship. It's not like he's walking around with citizenship papers tossing them at any immigrant that comes his way. This way we'll have legal people who can contribute to society, and taxes, and their communities, which will end up helping America rather then what's going on now with all the illegals hurting her.

Where are you getting your services when you don't have to wait long? When I sliced my thumb on a carving knife and went to the hospital, it took 6 hours for the doctor to finally put 3 stitches in, and the bill came out to a total of 617 dollars.

You say that healthcare shouldn't be free, well why not? Out of anything in the world Healthcare should be the only thing that's free. If your own government does not care enough about it's citizens to protect their health then just how messed up is that?

The reason Middle Class America has been taxed for so long is because of Bush in term cut taxes from the rich. He cut back on the taxes that the rich have to pay, while the ones who are broke as hell had to pay more taxes. And also, please please please dont ever think that "that's just how it is" People can change things, if you don't believe it then look at slavery, i bet back when that was still around slaves thought that that was just the way it was and when women couldn't vote we thought that was just the way it was. If you aren't don't care to get angry enough to fix it, then it's always going to stay the same.

...In theory. In practice? They'll get it.




ahahahahaha tax increases. why not avoiding spending in the first place?



Agreed. But what's the reason for this?

Government involvement. And you want to give them more control?



You are definitely being heartless. You're going to advertise universal healthcare, then deny people because it has to be rationed.



Who are you to decide what people's wages should be?



What's the population of Germany and France vs the population of the United States?

What about beloved Canada with their healthcare system, which has a lower population than California? Why do Canadians come to the US to avoid lines for services?

Also, France's healthcare system is going bankrupt. The last thing we need in this economy is yet another unsustainable government program. We still have Social Security on our plate.



And I believe if we allowed the free market to work, the US could have the best and most free healthcare system.

man, i forgot what the heath care system is like here, but we have to take these illegal immigrants from china and let them give birth to their babies etc. that's just annoying.

One of the biggest reasons I worry about Public Health care is the success record of our government right now:

• Social Security is turning to shit.
• USPS is going bankrupt due to the gov't meddling in its business affairs.
• Medicare is going down the tubes.
• Cash for Clunkers, while it saved many people lots of money, was a total nightmare in terms of money management.

I really don't want a government run system. I don't have faith in our government, and our current system that is private is working. It's our private health care system that pushes technologies to it's limits, because there is profit in doing so. I know it's not perfect, but it is better.

Even the liberal media is pushing stories that criticize a public health care system. that scares the hell out of me: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=8227482 The news rarely speaks bad about what Obama's pushing for.

so what is obama's proposition?, i see this crazy shit on the new about the town hall meetings but i don't really now what he is proposing

He is proposing a government run health care system. It's another 1000+ page bill that barely anyone has read, and is being forced down the throats of congress. Many people are comparing it to Canada's gov't run health care system as they are our neighbors.

that's a really misleading and non-descriptive presentation of the obama proposal; the plan is for a public option, designed to compete with the private industry. there is no overhaul of the system in this bill, it merely proposes a government controlled insurance option. the option in question will not even receive, after a start-up, unusual government subsidies. it is simply a public option for insurance, one of which you will purchase (if you choose to use it), much like a private plan. in fact, it will operate almost exactly like a private insurance, it will simply be more efficient (due to decreased administration), and have more affordable/accessible plans (i.e. coverage for persons will pre-existing conditions). the proposal will be paid for by a surtax applied to higher wage earning families--for example, those families making $350,000-500,000 a year will received a 1% surtax. the highest tier earners, those making a million dollars or more a year, will receive a 5.4% surtax.

how can you say that with a straight face?

Just like how the post office is more efficient than UPS and FedEx right?

i don't want to pay a 1% surtax ;| -whines-

1. in the sense that the public option will get more work done, for less money, it's more efficient; that's what efficiency is. the private industry may be able to provide services @ a marginally faster pace, but, still, @ a great price.
2. the public option will actually run more smoothly than insurance; i mean, have you ever actually dealt with a private insurance agency? for one, the public option will have normalized plans, so all the plans will cover the same procedures, without questions concerning previous conditions, age, current health, etc. etc. private industry, on the other hand, pays much money to deny care to its costumers, this results in a lot of wasted dollars and much bureaucracy. much of that bureaucracy will be eliminated in the private option.
3. you can't argue that the public option will take the private industry out of competition while @ the same time arguing that the public option will provide poor quality care; such an argument is contradictory. notice that, despite the fact that many people us the usps, private industries compete within the same exact market.
4. i've never had a serious problem with the usps. nonetheless, as goes consumer approval, government run programs like medicare and medicaid have higher ratings, in comparison to private insurance providers, considering quality of service.

By what type of sorcery will this be achieved?



Why can they do this? Because it's subsidized by taxpayers. There is no motivation to be efficient because they know they can just dig deeper into the pockets of taxpayers/create more debt/inflate our currency to pay for their scheme.

And I call bullshit on the last part. The government will deny care too, adding more bureaucracy when deciding how to ration care.



Sure I can. Look at what happened with mail delivery. USPS has shitty service, yet USPS has a monopoly on first class mail.

The government will regulate and regulate and regulate to put everyone else out of business. In fact, government regulation is part of the reason why healthcare is so expensive in the first place.



Don't take my word for it, ask our President what he thinks about USPS.

Medicaid and medicare are broke. Even Obama admits that medicare and medicaid will bankrupt this country. Except for some reason, he thinks that the solution to problematic government run insurance programs is adding more problematic government run insurance programs.

At has nothing to do with immigrants, taxes, etc.

Look at it this way.

The people who don't want universal healthcare are typically rich or heard from a congress person all the negatives.
Look who's convincing you!
Someone who will be able to afford healthcare no matter what.
If you made 65,000$ a year, a simple procedure could cut that in half without universal healthcare.
So what if you pay a little more taxes. No one complains for the services like free fire and police that they pay for that hardly works.
Paying a little bit in taxes does not even compare to a $30,000 procedure you'd have to pay for.

The people who want universal healthcare are typically jobless deadbeats or liberal elites who won't even use the system they are advocating (kinda like the hypocrites who tout public education, and then send their kids to elite private schools).
Look who's convincing you!
If you made 65,000$ a year, a simple procedure could cut that in half without private insurance.
So what if you pay a little more insurance premiums. No one complains for the services like fire insurance and home insurance that they pay for that hardly works.
Paying a little bit in private insurance does not even compare to a $30,000 procedure you'd have to pay for.

Government options have obvious and unfair competitive advantages over privately own businesses that cause them to go out of business. More jobs will be lost than created. A government option will suffocate private insurance companies.

It's laughable to see you suggest that they're more efficient due to decreased administration. Gov't is notorious for having to much administrative staff.

I don't support taking from people who work hard for their salary and giving it to those who don't deserve it.



LOL



I don't think I could have said this better myself. Haha.

you can't have your cake and eat it too. either the government option is awesome, and the private industry won't be able to compete. or it sucks, and the private industry will be able to compete. you can't have the government option suck balls and then put the private industry out of business.

secondly, the government option will have NO UNUSUAL GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES AFTER INITIAL START-UP! IT WILL OPERATE ALMOST EXACTLY LIKE A PRIVATE INSURANCE FIRM. read the f*cking thread, educate yourself.

lastly, WE HAVE THE MOST f*ckING EXPENSIVE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD. ALL OTHER GOVERNMENT RUN SYSTEMS ARE CHEAPER (I.E. MORE EFFICIENT) AND MOST HAVE EQUITABLE OR GREATER QUALITY RATINGS (ACCORDING TO THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION) THAN THE U.S.A.



wait, sort of like significantly paying people less than the value of a product that THEY produce?

not to mention, SOME PEOPLE CAN'T f*ckING AFFORD INSURANCE YOU f*ckING DICK HEAD! THE SHIT IS EXPENSIVE! THAT'S THE f*ckING PROBLEM! even worse, SOME PEOPLE CAN'T EVEN f*ckING GET IT EVEN IF THEY f*ckING WANTED TO BECAUSE THEY WERE f*ckING BORN WITH CANCER OR ARE DECLARED TO HAVE A "PRE-EXISTING CONDITION!"

are you f*cking telling me that people who are born with ailments don't "deserve" healthcare? death panels much?

p.s. the issue is finding a healthcare system that is best for everyone, and best for the country. that's the primary concern. not whether or not we have to raise taxes. personally, i have enough dedication to this country to want to see my taxes raised for a good cause. we are a society, a unit, a civilization that is designed to function together towards progress. it's good that we have a public school system, so that everyone has the opportunity to be educated. it's good that we have roads so that transportation can be made possible. it's good that we have a military so that our country can be defended. IF YOU PUT THE INDIVIDUAL BEFORE THE SOCIETY YOU LOSE ALL OF THIS. so the question is this: is the moral precedent so great that you would not collect taxes in order to give everyone a free public education? would you not collect taxes to build roads? would you not collect taxes to defend your homeland? would you not collect taxes to make your country healthier & happier?

Our public school system is FUBAR. I think we spend a bit too much considering the children who attend public school in other countries have better grades than we do. We could lower taxes here and still have the same "quality education".
Roads are necessary. Don't mind paying for it.
Military is necessary. Don't mind paying for it.

Anyway, you can also argue that putting health care in the government's hands is bad for society. The addition of a public option will destroy competition in the health system via the public options unfair competitive advantages. Investors will not invest their money in things that don't lead to a profit. If competition is removed then the strive for better health practices and technology through research will be slowed down due to a lack of private investors. After all, it is through health insurance that these industries get paid.

Yes, we pay more for our health care than other countries, but our health practices is also far more advanced than in other countries. People travel from all over the world to receive medical treatment in America for that very reason. In the future, we will have a healthier America if we continue to support a private health care system.

You mean for the people that can afford it, but other than that, you're right, healthcare will go to shits, or we could both be wrong and every private health insurer decides to go all superman and trys to out perform one another.

Most people in America can afford it. Health insurers do try to out preform one another. That's the whole purpose of the competitive market. Businesses switch health insurers all the time to lower their rate.

Also, I want to make it very clear that I don't think our health care system is perfect. I definitely be leave that there are certain areas where the consumer is being taken advantage of. Mal-practice insurance for doctors is ridiculously high. People are robbed by price of prescriptions. These are major contributing factors to the price of insurance.

Insurance doesn't do any good if you can't afford the actual health procedures. Just because you're insured, doesn't mean that your health insurance company will actually pay anything. There're a lot of cases of people being suddenly dropped from insurance because they file for cancer treatment or another expensive procedure. There are also a lot of cases in which people are denied a claim and have to pay for a procedure on their own, even though they have insurance. And insurance companies don't usually cover potentially life-saving operations that they determine to be "experimental".

In short, affording health insurance doesn't mean anything if the insurance company doesn't pony up the dough when you actually need it.

Hm. Did I just suggest that "health rationing" already takes place in America?

As someone who works in the health care industry, I strongly disagree. There are other industries that have affordable health care, like education based employers but for the most part, health benefit premiums are continuing to climb. That doesn't even take into consideration that points that Michael has brought up, regarding the procedure related services which could range anywhere from E&M (evaluation and management) visits to specialty visits.

There's also that nasty little "pre-condition/pre-cert" snag. Meaning, if you've been diagnosed with a chronic illness and you lose your job (and any benefits associated with that job), you're screwed. Sure you can attempt a non break in health insurance coverage to try to avoid being denied private insurance for pre-condition reasons, but you'd have to take out COBRA, which is absurdly expensive.

This brings up another point I wanted to make: Not only can insurance outside of employers' benefits be expensive, but there's no guarantee you'll even get it. A friend of mine graduated from college in '06, and didn't get a job that offered health insurance right away, so she had to purchase insurance on her own. She's a pretty healthy individual, but she has a chronic intestinal disease (Crohn's disease, I believe) that requires constant treatment. Needless to stay, no insurance provider would pick her up as a customer, even though she was otherwise healthy -- at least not at a fair, affordable rate.

So even if you can afford health insurance, you can't always get it.

I see situations like that far too often, especially with diabetes mellitus related diagnoses and there are ton of sub diagnoses to go along with DM (including retinopathy, polyneuropathy, vascular disease and so on). Better hope you can control your disease with diet and supplements because affording insulin without insurance is next to impossible for the average income earner.

Also, Crohn's management is tricky. I don't envy your friend's situation, at all.

I don't understand why you might think government won't operate in a similar fashion? Currently the Gov't offers Medicare (which is going bankrupt). Also, many doctor's don't even accept medicare gov't doesn't pay as much and the paperwork is a bitch. In many cases, it just doesn't cover their operating costs.

Again, I don't think our system is perfect. I might believe it's among the best, but that doesn't mean that there's no room for improvement. To expect the gov't to do a better job is ridiculous. The gov't is so unreliable it's pathetic. There are people out there that clearly need help, but giving control over to the gov't is not the way to solve this. I've seen a few different ideas thrown around. A few things that would reduce the bill:

• Tort Reform to lower malpractice insurance
• Group Insurance Plans to lower insurance premiums
• Insurance Accounts that allow you to choose a carrier and stay with you from job to job
• Make all medical expenses tax deductible
• The list goes on...

There are plenty of ways to reduce the cost of Health Insurance without handing it over to the gov't.

Perhaps it will -- although I trust the government more than an insurance company. An insurance company can maximize profits when it takes in payments but doesn't pay for coverage; since a company's goal is to maximize profits, an insurance has a vested interest in denying coverage whenever possible.



And insurance companies are any more reliable? You never know when an insurance company is going to deny a claim for arbitrary reasons.

The gov't doesn't have an endless supply of income either. The gov't will have the right to deny claims as well.



And you never know when the govt's going to do it either. I'm not saying change shouldn't happen. There definitely needs to be change, however handing control over to the gov't is NOT the solution. Handing health care over to the gov't is a temporary fix that will result in big financial problems.

So how do you suggest we make health care affordable for all Americans?

Anyway, aside from the feasibility and pros/cons of an entirely private, entirely public, or hybrid ("public option") plan, I think there was a really good point brought up by Nate that's hardly been discussed (I suspect mostly because it's not as easy to debate as the economics of various insurance plans), and that's the social morals of health care. Don't we, as a society, have a moral obligation to take care of our sick? Don't we have a moral obligation to help one another? That is the whole point of society. You can go back to the origins of the social contract theory for this idea. I believe it was Hobbes (among others) who suggested that humans derived great benefit from joining in society, rather than staying in the "jungle", but as a result, man has to give up certain privileges (such as the unchecked accumulation of wealth -- i.e., the freedom from taxation) in order to reap the benefits of society. There's no doubt that joining society gives man great benefits, but those benefits are not without cost, and part of that cost is putting the needs of others above your own. I feel that the capitalist ideal, which is essentially "every man for himself", runs completely counter to the notions of society.

Here's one idea - stop the gratuitous spending by means of "overuse".


http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/95xx/doc9567/07...e_Testimony.pdf

This isn't new news. Most of the noise regarding universal health care is just that, noise. The major part of the problem has occurred within the medical industry itself and no universal system, no big brother stepping in is going to solve the problem. The only thing it might do is drive people further into debt because physicians and facilities will continue to perform unnecessary tests, prescribe unnecessary medications and perform unnecessary procedures and the government will not reimbursement the patient for said services. They will deny these benefits for the lack of prior authorization, not medically appropriate and other such reasons.

You want to fix the problem, give the industry an enema. Flush out the crap and get back to practicing medicine. The best way to solve a problem, to diagnose a patient is through good history in-taking and preventative medicine. This takes time and too often people are in a rush to find the miracle cure that they end up fixing problems with bandaids instead of solving the problem through long term treatment.

For example - patient presents with strong family history of diabetes and heart disease. Patient is overweight, smokes and drinks heavily. Patient leads sedentary life.

Patient goes home, goes on about his life.

10 years later.

Patient presents with uncontrolled diabetes and is morbidly obese. Recommend diet and insulin training. Will write script for insulin. Consider gastric bypass.


Almost all of that last part could have been avoided. That patient is now considered high risk (interpreted as "expensive") to any health care entity.

I'm not at all accusing physicians of being alone in fault. It's the public too. We want to complain about health care costs when many individuals don't take the necessary steps in their own lives to prevent costly health care expenses later in life.

(I was typing this before I saw your more recent response, Michael so I'll wait for the social aspect of this for the time being)

Well, I think you (Rebecca) bring up a couple of more good points that are important to consider:

1. There is a tendency to require unnecessary tests and treatments, and part of this is due to the horrendous malpractice issue in this country. Doctors often order unnecessary tests as a sort of "cover your ass" move to prevent malpractice suits. The thing that the general public needs to realize is that medicine is as much an art as it is a science, and doctors aren't right 100% of the time. Yeah, no one wants to die after going in for surgery...but unless a doctor is grossly negligent, I think we have to accept that mistakes will occasionally happen. Unnecessary treatments also result in our situation with antibiotics, in which antibiotics were so over-prescribed that many conventional antibiotics are now useless, resulting in the need for newer and more expensive medicines (although I'm sure pharmaceutical companies love that).
2. We really should consider long-term treatment solutions, rather than "quick fixes". Americans often demand medicine to fix what could be solved by long-term lifestyle changes. Diabetes is a good example. Another is heartburn. There are tons of heartburn drugs on the market, when the solution to heartburn is pretty simple for most people: don't eat spicy food. But people want to be able to swallow a pill and eat as much chile as they can. Mental illness is another area in which we look to quick solutions. Depressed? Take Prozac. Anxious? Take Xanax. I'm not saying that medicine is never necessary for mental illness, but it is over-prescribed, in my opinion. A short anecdote: for about four months, I was treated for depression and anxiety. Both my therapist and I were reluctant to prescribe drugs, so we did it the "old-fashioned way": by talking. It probably cost a good deal more than drugs (and therapy sessions weren't covered under my old insurance plan), but in the long run, I think it's worked out better. It did take a lot more work on both our parts than just popping a pill, though.
   
   Hell, Brooke Shields is even advertising a pill to make your eyelashes longer now, for God's sake.
   
   Partly this solution could be improved with controls on pharmaceutical companies' advertising. I don't think drug companies should be pushing their drugs on TV. Doctors, not the general public, should decide what drugs are necessary.

Correct, this "jungle" was something he called a state of nature, and since no rational man wanted to live in it, he said f*ck it, lets make some laws. But, the whole moral obligation was more Locke. Which brings me to my question. Do you think its worth it? Are you willing to risk the jobs of doctors, further research into medical science, and technological advances so a few million more people can get health insurance?

Also just as a side note, I already know what your answer is, but was your decision from trying to help others? or rather feeling happy that you're trying to help others?

See this is the thing that worries me about today's doctors. If they really wanted to make advances in medical science, wouldn't they do it for the people and not for the money? A lot of times doctors misdiagnose people because they just don't care. I recently read an article where they use race to determine a diagnosis which in return leads to a misdiagnosis.

If money wasn't involved than many of the intelligent individuals who are doctors today would spend their time in college investing in another career. Doctors spend years in college and in return make decent living. Just because a doctor does a job that keeps you alive doesn't take away the fact that he's doing a job. It shouldn't bother you that people do things for money. That intelligent doctor who saves your life one day may have become something else if it wasn't worth his time. I'm not suggesting that all doctors are perfect or that there aren't doctors with a passion for helping people. I'm only suggesting that doctors are usually smart people who invest a lot of time and money in quality schooling and deserve a decent check.

under a universal systems, doctors are still likely to be significant high income earners. it's just the the difference between one awesome sports car, or two. i think it's fair to say that one awesome sports car constitutes a "decent check."

also, as another point, there is no good reason to believe that medical research will necessarily be hindered by universal medicine:
1. a private industry will still exist.
2. a social program can create incentives towards research.

canada has pioneered many procedures and experimental medicines under a universal system.

lastly, i would like to reiterate a point that seems to uniformly ignored: consumer approval ratings of the services provided by public insurance (like medicare and medicaid) is higher than consumer ratings of private insurance. lastly, the quality of care in other countries, which spend much less in healthcare than us & have all persons insured and covered, is, in most cases, equal to or greater than our own. in fact, the world health organization has ranked the u.s. system as 37th, under 36 over-performing countries with socialized medicine. even worse, the united states ranks 11th in "mortality amenable to health care," meaning that preventable death is serious in america.

"'It is startling to see the U.S. falling even farther behind on this crucial indicator of health system performance,' said Commonwealth Fund Senior Vice President Cathy Schoen. "By focusing on deaths amenable to health care, Nolte and McKee strip out factors such as population and lifestyle differences that are often cited in response to international comparisons showing the U.S. lagging in health outcomes. The fact that other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less, indicates that policy, goals, and efforts to improve health systems make a difference'."

we rank 24th in life expectancy & we have the 2nd highest health expenditure (as a % of g.d.p). [1]

to be as perfectly clear as i can be: MANY SYSTEMS OUT-PERFORM AMERICA'S and WE PAY MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE FOR HEALTH CARE.

First, doctors deserve an awesome check. It's that awesome check that attracts the brightest people in the world to peruse a medical career in America. I want those people working in America.

Second, people tote the life expectancy rate around like it has some direct correlation to health care and it doesn't. There are many factors that have nothing to do with health care and bring down the life expectancy rate in America. Such as poverty, homicide rate, dietary habits, accident rate, tobacco, and even abortion (in other countries the parents of mental challenged children often opt to have an abortion rather than give their babies a life).

Third, I'm not disagreeing with you in regards to how much money we spend on our health care system, however there are many ways to lower the cost of health care without placing health care into gov't hands. I think that Reb makes a good point when she refers to doctors being forced to preform test after test just to cover their asses. They spend more time avoiding law suites then helping patients.

It isn't uniformly ignored. I've merely pointed out that the problem of health care isn't exclusive to private insurance companies. It's the industry as a whole.

Rankings and statistics are good and by no means am I saying that your points are not valid. I have a strong opinion that before any type of decision can be made regarding universal health care, a thorough analysis of the day to day practices and costs per patient, per diagnosis needs to be performed. I know for a fact that this already being implemented and that many private insurance entities are being scrutinized right now for that very reason.

I also do not believe that the future of health care should consist of any one particular insurance group - be it public or private. I think that options are good and that competition between insurance types is healthy. I'm down with both, not one or the other.

Also, the "cya" excuse isn't 100% valid. Part of the excessiveness is due to many physicians not wanting to take the time necessary to counsel patients in long term and preventative care. Also, many patients are not innocent either. The quick fix is attractive to both physicians and patients.

HEALTH, in general, is better in other countries as well. You can't totally blame "America's" system for the lack of positivity in system ranking/performance. The idea that further bureaucratic decision making is going to completely solve the issue of health care is a little misguided. I mean this with no disrespect. Change needs to occur from the patient and physician level in conjunction with any change in overall health care policies.

i thought of you this morning rebecca when i was reading this david brooks column in the paper. i don't know it just reminded me of stuff you've said in this thread about getting down to the real problems.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/opinion/...amp;ref=opinion

I'm aware of this and I agree.


Of course it doesn't bother me that people do things for money. I understand that concept, but when it comes to my health and well being, I think I have every right to be concerned about who I'm putting my trust in. When you're putting someone's life on the line, if you're going into the medical field you shouldn't just be in it for the money. Do you honestly think the best doctors are the ones who got in it for the money or the ones who actually have the passion for it? Sometimes the doctors don't know anymore than the person they're supposed to help. Point and case ( This happened to a relative of mine):

*Doctor prescribes pills
*Paitent doesn't feel good taking the pills but the doctor insists that it's just a side effect, no harm will be done*
*Patient refuses, goes to another doctor
*A year later, major recall on the pills, because they cause heart attack, blood clots, stroke, and even death

So tell me who knew more in this situation? The patient or the intelligent doctor who has a degree? But you don't think I should be concerned when this happens all too often?

another good article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200909/health-care


long as hell, but i think pretty much everybody in the debate can agree with at least some parts of this. worth the read.

This sentiment is what I think is a bit ridiculous about this debate. A person can argue that a single-payer system (or at least a public option) would be bad for the United States, and no one asks questions like, "Hey, is your decision based on facts, or are you just trying to protect your cronies in the health care industry?" Or someone can argue that it'll cost too much money, and no one asks, "Are you just arguing against universal health care because you get health insurance from your employer, and don't care about anyone but yourself and your own family?" But if a person (e.g., me) argues about both the moral implications of not helping those less fortunate, or the pragmatic implications of not doing so, it immediately raises questions like this.

In other words, why are people so suspicious of those who are trying to help others? I think that has been the greatest success of America's capitalist machine: it's actually managed to convince lower- and middle-class individuals that the "captains of industry" are trying to look out for them, and that they should be suspicious of anyone trying to help the poor. Poor people all over the world get screwed over by the rich; the difference is that in places like central America, poor people know they're being screwed, and actively try to fight the oppression as best they can; in America, poor people are convinced that they're not being screwed over by the rich. Our corporate-owned media has clearly done its job of placating the masses and diffusing blame.

So no, my motivation comes from a desire to level the playing field. Would I be happy if we got universal health care in America? Yes, very. Would I be happy knowing that I helped others? Yes, very -- who isn't happy when they can make others' lives better? But is my whole motivation born out of a desire to assuage my own guilt by helping others (as you seem to suggest)? No -- I'd rather just fix the system than sit around smugly content that I was doing a little bit to help.

i currently don't have health insurance, but i don't believe in someone else paying for it either. i'd rather do without and get billed a quarter million if i ever find myself in intensive care (this actually happened to a friend of mine). that's just how i believe it should work; if you want something, PAY for it.

my friends who currently get free health coverage whether through their parents or for having low income annoy the f*ck out of me. why should they be able to get free/cheap lasik or braces while at the same time are able to satisfy their materialistic and superficial needs, with iphones, ps3s, 360s, computers up the wazoo. it reminds me of all these people living in the projects who pull bmws and range rovers out their asses. it's bullshit. if you can't afford it, i'd rather you look like it. i guess i am heartless ;o

I'm so sorry.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/us...tory?id=4457611

I didnt know you had so many fans.