.

Kind of an open ended question.

Becoming a new RN I have some insight that I never used to have.

I see people suffering all the time, either from the disease process itself or the mental anguish of finding out what this has done to their family's finances.

You'll get all sorts of opinions on this but I feel that there MUST be a better way. We live in a great country that is full of bright energetic people who can (and should IMO) figure something out that will provide quality preventive care along with top notch acute care.

I'm hopeful!

Russ

Not a good Idea. Tell me which universal health care system works as well as ours.

Yoda

Originally Posted by Yoda

Not a good Idea. Tell me which universal health care system works as well as ours.

Yoda

Define "works"... By all standard benchmarks developed by industrialized countries to measure health, The USA is way down toward the bottom (despite the fact that we spend more per capita than ANY other country). I would recommend forum members go to www.pnhp.org to learn how damaged the current health care industry really is.

I have lived all over and had health insurance through my husbands employment for the last 32 years, But as a kid I didn’t, we never went to the doctor unless we where really at deaths door. In Hawaii I experienced HMSA. As I understand it(And I could be wrong) when insurance companies first wanted to write in HI. The state government said we are one people you will charge the same for all Hawaiians or not write here. Guess what they chose not to do business in HI. HMSA was developed by the doctors and hospitals to fill the gap. Everyone in Hawaii is covered either by their employer or by the state all at the same per person rate. People in Hawaii are very poor. The difference between the wages that regular working class people earn compared to the cost of living is huge, But all have health care. If it works for Hawaii why not the rest of us?

I know it's nit-picking, but it's "national" health care, not "universal."

Highly idyllic, but in the hands of "government control," it would drag all health care to its lowest common denominator and have more regulation than the current tax code.

Imagine having government administrators managing a "National HMO." What a concept!

Healthcare for Americans has been primarily the product of insurance plans negotiated by employers and offered by private insurance companies. For those of us that have coverage, it's become dramatically more expensive over the last decade or so. At the same time, payments to providers--with the exception of the pharmaceutical companies--have declined to the point where doctors and hospitals are being very selective on which insurance companies they will accept for assignment. Many big city doctors and hospitals won't accept Medicare anymore. And in Illinois, a large group of hospitals and doctors have opted not to accept the largest insurer in the state, Blue Cross-Blue Shield.

At the same time this is happening to those of us that are insured, there are 50 million Americans--almost 20% of our population--that have no health insurance at all. If they get sick or are injured, their only option is a hospital emergency room which, when they can't pay the bill, adds to the cost that must be shared by the rest of us.

THE PRIVATE SYSTEM OF HEALTHCARE INSURANCE THAT WE HAVE NOW ISN'T WORKING!

Clearly, something needs to be done to correct the problems I've cited. I'm sure there are all kinds of possibilities that will be discussed by Congress. The opponents of any form of government healthcare insurance will wail that the government will become our health care provider, they will pick our doctors and prescribe our treatment. That allegation will circulate, even on this forum, even though no one--NO ONE--has proposed that to be the case. The worst scenario I've heard is that the government will provide an insurance option, but that everyone will have the right to remain with their existing insurer if they so choose. But the plans being discussed will provide for healthcare coverage for the 50 million or so who don't currently hve coverage.

If in the process of legislating a plan, some of the abuses that have resulted from the lobbying of special interests--the effect of the pharma lobby on the Medicare prescription bill is a good example--so much the better.

I only hope that as a country we can afford to pay for a plan that private companies have failed horribly to provide.

someone suggests! Name ONE government system that is not rife with cost over runs, pork, and special interests. What else would you like the government to own/run? Cradle to grave care such as in Sweden? Subsided steel as in the UK.

At what cost are YOU willing to be taxed to provide health care to others?

The countries that provide government health care are some of the highest taxed in the world. You like their health care, see what they pay in taxes at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rat...e_world#Graphs

Originally Posted by SteveZ

I know it's nit-picking, but it's "national" health care, not "universal."

Highly idyllic, but in the hands of "government control," it would drag all health care to its lowest common denominator and have more regulation than the current tax code.

Imagine having government administrators managing a "National HMO." What a concept!

Imagine non-gov't private CEO's running our largest financial institutions... Likewise, the insurance industry has recently had a number of embarassing blemishes related to fraud... one example right here in Florida.

Originally Posted by gnu

someone suggests! Name ONE government system that is not rife with cost over runs, pork, and special interests. What else would you like the government to own/run? Cradle to grave care such as in Sweden? Subsided steel as in the UK.

At what cost are YOU willing to be taxed to provide health care to others?

The countries that provide government health care are some of the highest taxed in the world. You like their health care, see what they pay in taxes at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rat...e_world#Graphs

This subject should not even be an issue until the country gets it's head well above water. And when it does..it should die a quick death.

Anything the government runs will be filled with pork and bureaucrats. It would be 10 times as bad as the education bureaucracy. Reagan should have eliminated that when he had the chance, too.

Whenever we want more than what we have, because what we have now is imperfect and we know there must be a better way, the easy way out is - let the government do it.

The problem is that government, specifically the politicians who realize money and regulation is their bread and butter, is all too ready to take more money and write more regulations. Unfortunately, more money and more regulation does not make something better, but it does make it more expensive.

"Free" health care is like a free lunch - it isn't. And the quality of free stuff never seems to be worth much either.

We abhor it when insurance number-crunchers determine if a procedure will be authorized or not. How will it be with government number-crunchers? What will be the job description and pay scale for the government employee who will decide - based on to-be-written regulations - what health care will be authorized and to whom and under what conditions? How will it be truly any different (or better) than what exists now?

Before we jump to wanting national health care, take a hard look at operations such as the Indian Health Service which provides health care to American Indians and Alaska Natives (see http://www.ihs.gov/index.cfm?module=About and http://64.38.12.138/News/2008/008277.asp and http://www.nysun.com/national/senate...th-care/71935/ ). Is this what we can expect - expansion of efforts like this?

Originally Posted by SteveZ;208537[B

]Whenever we want more than what we have, because what we have now is imperfect and we know there must be a better way, the easy way out is - let the government do it.[/B]

The problem is that government, specifically the politicians who realize money and regulation is their bread and butter, is all too ready to take more money and write more regulations. Unfortunately, more money and more regulation does not make something better, but it does make it more expensive.

"Free" health care is like a free lunch - it isn't. And the quality of free stuff never seems to be worth much either.

We abhor it when insurance number-crunchers determine if a procedure will be authorized or not. How will it be with government number-crunchers? What will be the job description and pay scale for the government employee who will decide - based on to-be-written regulations - what health care will be authorized and to whom and under what conditions? How will it be truly any different (or better) than what exists now?

Before we jump to wanting national health care, take a hard look at operations such as the Indian Health Service which provides health care to American Indians and Alaska Natives (see http://www.ihs.gov/index.cfm?module=About and http://64.38.12.138/News/2008/008277.asp and http://www.nysun.com/national/senate...th-care/71935/ ). Is this what we can expect - expansion of efforts like this?

Exactly. In Boston we call it the Big Hackerama. People that are connected get on the payrolls whether their qualified or not. It becomes a place for politicians to get their nephews and god-sons a hack-job.
In the dreaded private sector...payrolls don't get padded. Companies answer to boards and the stock-holders.
Who do the government employees answer to???? More agencies, departments, CZARS, etc. Government has been too top heavy for too long and we don't need to add to it. IMNSHO

of us have today to spread it to those who have nothing today. Then to make up the shortfall of what is not provided we will have to get a private supplement.
If you think you get to keep what you are provided today while they work in the have nots....you are mistaken.

Furthermore, it is a program that is destined to fail....will take forever to get passed....AND IS A DISTRACTION TO MR. OBAMA AND HIS CONGRESS TO FIX THE ECONOMY as promised to get elected.

The economy first before all the other fluff programs.

BTK

We already have a low-cost, single-payer system health insurance system. It is about health insurance, individuals have freedom of choice in selecting providers, administrative costs average 4% vs. 14% for private insurance carriers -- it's called Medicare!
Let's simply expand coverage to people under 65, DUH!
There are no waiting lines in Canada (I have spoken with Canadian consumers and not listened to the crapola from the lobbyists and their radio acolytes). Canadians love the system, the freedom of choice and the low insurance rates.
What are we waiting for?

Originally Posted by saratogaman

We already have a low-cost, single-payer system health insurance system. It is about health insurance, individuals have freedom of choice in selecting providers, administrative costs average 4% vs. 14% for private insurance carriers -- it's called Medicare!
Let's simply expand coverage to people under 65, DUH!
There are no waiting lines in Canada (I have spoken with Canadian consumers and not listened to the crapola from the lobbyists and their radio acolytes). Canadians love the system, the freedom of choice and the low insurance rates.
What are we waiting for?

Everytime when I am golfing and get paired up with Canadians I always ask them if they would trade their current health care system for ours. I know it's an unscientific poll but, to date, 100% emphatically say NO!

The above Medicare example is correct.

I would suspect that most who argue against universal coverage are all covered and quite comfortable.... and view the uninsured as a bunch of welfare losers looking for a free ride. Wrong--the majority of the uninsured are hard working Americans who make too much for medicaid, are too young for medicare and whose employer doesnt offer insurance. What do you recommend to provide health care for this group of people?????