Do YOU Think Governement SHOULD Provide All with Healthcare, or NOT?

No, the job of the federal government does not include healthcare. If individual states are intrested in this it is whithin their constiutional power to do so. Government takeovers do not treat us well. Our cancer surviorship rates are much higher than those with government run healthcare

Absolutley. The greatness of a country is judged by how well it treats its most vulnerable. That would include sick people. Let the very corporate owned government that backs up big pharma's 500+% mark up pay the price. Maybe we could peel off one of the 200 billion dollars that are spent otherwise every few months for destruction and murder. If those Elite Rulers don't take better care of their peasants, they won't have anyone to do their production work anymore and then who would make them filthy rich?

Beats me. I think some form of universal health care would be an improvement over the chaos we have now. It's obvious that private enterprise doesn't handle health care well.

I think that all working people should get health care. I am totally pissed that people on welfare who do not do a damn thing to contribute to society get free health care while the working class, the elderly (whom have worked all of their life) and some children go without health care.
Take away welfare health care and give it to people who deserve it.

i think there should be universal health care only because i am in the group that would greatly benefit from it. i can see from another point of view why people wouldnt want it because taxes suck. I am a full time student working part time with no insurance :(.

yes, If we can continue to ade every earthquake and flood in the world why can't we take care of our own people?

I agree that heath care should be provided for every citizen.

While I firmly do believe that something has to be done about the rising cost of healthcare, I don't know that making it a government concern would be the answer. In most government areas you have little or no control over which doctors you get to choose from. I am sure if it was all covered you would have some freedom of choice, but when all of the good doctors are full, who gets stuck with the rest. How many good doctors would remain, if they are overloaded with patients because so many others are trying to avoid the rest. There would have to be a lot of questions covered before such a system could be implimented satisfactorly.

Health care is needlessly expensive. Universal health care would change all of that. We may have to pay more in taxes but to never have to worry that an illness can drive one to bankruptcy reduces stress. Stress creates illness. In the long run, we need to have a wellness attitude in this country as well as universal health care. There are so many things we can do to live a healthy lifestyle.

Okay... Most of you are saying that we can pay for universal health care with taxes... What kind of Taxes? Income, sales, property, etc?

The government keeps enlarging programs for the poor, using providers who charge them more than the actual expenses would be for universal health care, (per person of course!) Health is a right, not a privilege. Just think of how much healthcare would drop if the middle man, (insurance companies), were out of the picture!

As for paying for it, how about a nice paycut for our elected officials?

Well, considering that all of our elected officials get great healthcare, paid for by us, yes...I think the citizens should get the same treatment. I firmy believe healthcare falls under the right to "life". Many die becasue they cannot afford treatment. Were the government to ever actually run efficiently, and stop the waste of paying a million bucks for a couple of screws, we could likely afford it without much increase in taxes.

Genine my costs for health related things costs MORE than what they charge those with insurance. The insurance companies cut deals with doctors and hospitals that join their network. The docs get a group of people with limited choices, increasing their number of patients, the insurance company pays a much lower cost for care. I once went to the ER (unknowingly) because I fainted, 10 min with a doc, one tube of blood, one bag of IV fluids, they charged $1600. The charge to an insurance company (if I had had one) would have been (researched Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan) about $650.

Yes, then the companies themselves don't have to. Then they can compete a little better with China.

Penny
Were the government to ever actually run efficiently, and stop the waste of paying a million bucks for a couple of screws, we could likely afford it without much increase in taxes.
That would be nice, but it's been going on for so long... Haven't we been complaining about this a long time, but it keeps happening?

I want to see universal health care provided by the U.S. government. If funded properly it could save the average American family, not to mention most businesses, tons of money every year. You would pay for through fees or taxes but the cost would be far less.

HR 676 is a bill that would create a universal healthcare system in the U.S. It was introduced by Congressman Conyers and co-sponsored by Congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. Ask you Congressperson to add their name to growing list of co-sponsors for this bill. And vote Kucinich in the upcoming presidential primary.

One of the biggest concerns about such a system is that it could hurt our nation's ability to deliver specialized, high quality care. There is no reason why a private sector cannot continue to flourish and provide specialized care - such as for cancer patients - along side a government run system. In my view universal health care would most effectively deliver primary and preventative care. It is the lack of this type of care that causes the high demand for emergency and specialized care in America today.

How to fund such a system? Well, bringing the troops home from Iraq would free up billions of dollars per year. Or maybe taxing some of the windfall profits being enjoyed by big oil? The money is already there. We just have to decide to spend it on the right things.

Hubby and I are both self-employed and can't afford the high price of health insurance. Naturally, from a purely selfish viewpoint I would like to see it, but from what I understand, in countries where this is already in place they have a lot of problems with it. The people are put on long waiting lists. You could die before you would get to see a doctor. Many of them who have the money come here for their medical care. Also, I think that it might discourage medical research because there would be no financial incentives.

Marge that's what I see wrong with it... Is there a way to prevent this from happening?

My cousins in Sweden pay $10 for a doctor visit. They may have to wait longer to see a doc if they request a certain one. We don't have to reinvent the wheel, why isn't there a study of the various ways that other govt's have done health care, and try to find the solution that works for us. As it is now, the bloated insurance and pharmaceutical companies have a stranglehold on the legislatures. When we have govt by the people and for the people, instead of big business, we might get somewhere. Maybe with more women in govt there will be change?

Yes. Catch us up to the infant mortality rates of other western nations.

Very good idea ALISON! I think there should be a study done... Why hasn't anyone done that yet?

I believe that a single-payer system would be the most efficient and inexpensive. Right now much of the money paid to insurers goes to marketing and administration--convincing people to buy coverage and then sorting through all of the paperwork, billing hospitals, physicians and patients. With a single payer, all of those expenses go away. A single-payer system would also presumably negotiate drug prices as the VA has done for years. With a single-payer system it would also start making sense to promote preventive health on a large scale because the organization faced with the costs of preventive care would be the one to realize the savings in the future. As for paying for it, we're paying for health care now. The government pays for some of it, employers pay for some of it, and individuals pay for some of it. Rather than paying insurers (and their marketing and administration costs), the money could be re-directed toward a new system. There will definitely be issues that will need to be addressed, but none that can't be resolved.

What about people who cannot afford health insurance now, and whose employers don't provide any?

What about people who cannot afford to pay any more in taxes... they seriously cannot afford it?

Bringing home the troops doesn't look like it's going to happen.

Eliminating government waste most likely happen.

These seem to be just wishful thinking.

My vote in the 2008 election depends on who can come up with the best universal health care plan!

I beleive the goverement should offer health benefit to the one that want them if they cannot afford them

Theresa Has a point, possibly the best solution so far... If it could work... But what about those cannot afford to pay anything for insurance, cannot afford to pay more in taxes, whose employers do not provide any insurance and are not willing to pay anything towards it... But don't qualify for Welfare (pretty much because they have a job at all, even if they only make one dollar over poverty level income)

As it stands, 25% of our income is now going to healthcare. Something is WRONG, when a "risk" payment is more than a house payment!

It's a little puzzling to me that we're almost alone among developed countries in not having universal health care.

Who cares if there are some freeloaders? Think of all the freeloaders who have jobs.

I agree Lynn

The last insurance company I tried to get insurance from for just myself (no kids or anything) wanted $435 a month for VERY minimal coverage... We're talking, they covered only $250 every three months in normal doc visits, office tests, x-rays, etc. ER visits were $150 and then they only covered 50% after that. Yeah, sure, if something terribly catastrophic happened, I'd only end up paying $5,000 (Half a years income for me) in medical bills that year... They wouldn't cover ANY of my pre-existing conditions. Just insane.

I can see the upside and the downside to every angle ever broached on this subject. The main problem is, the costs are just to darned high! Medical costs need to be lowered and we need to be able to have more control over what we can do when doctors and nurses make mistakes. Here in the great state of NC, doctors are practically revered as gods and can do no wrong! It makes me sick.

Even when we buy our own insurance, the premiums are outrageous. And heaven forbid we get sick and have to have an extended stay in the hospital. We would be up the creek with out a paddle, just like some stories I have read recently.

I don't know that the government taking over would help this or not. I think it would hurt us more than help us in some ways.

I myself being low income believe we should recieve some help. I am not saying every single american should get free health coverage but the rates of health insurance are horrible. If you got through your company it is a set rate for everyone and if you go on your own your looking at 160 plus!It is getting rediculous. I agree with what Jerry S posted! It's all classified under who makes what and the question will also be answered in all different directions depending on what class people are in. I am for cheaper insurance, I never ask for anything free but cheap would be good.

Jerry S. I agree whole heartedly... That's the problem I see with creating a universal health care system... There would not be any incentives to be a GOOD doctor. There would not be any incentives to do much research into curing disease. There just would not be any incentives...

Theresa makes a good case for her point... Then there would still be the incentives... But that doesn't really solve the problem with people who can't afford it.

The government is not good at universal health care--too much paperwork, too many politicians wanting the money it would generate. I'm in favor of having doctors paid for the work they perform--no HMOs, no insurance carriers. I favor insuring yourself for catastrophic illness only. So you pay for your care when you have a cold, a virus, an eye infection etc. The small stuff should not go through an HMO or other "gatekeeper". But insurance for a stroke, a long term illness, a heart attack then makes sense to me. The big bills are what we are all afraid of.

First of all, thanks Heather P, for joining my group, Creative Thinkers. The debate about national health care always seems to trivialize some very important considerations yet highlight the very capitalist and free market economic system that once seemed to be the fabric and infrastructure of American society. Let's be clear that no one should be denied any free enterprise goods and services, if subsidized, sponsored, or supplemented by the federal government, and like most comments in response to this article, I believe that this national incentive for government-paid health care is an extraordinarily complex and social issue. I have been fortunate to have moderately good health but also keep in mind that the prevailing scientific/experimental/research/medical community could possibly examine and evaluate a countless number of ailments or conditions that would perhaps benefit me less than contribute to the overall or prevailing and current science of the day. I guess what I'm really trying to say is that without adequate accountability and other safeguards within the industry, again likely to be provided by the federal government of some other type of oversight, hundreds of millions of people will still be at the mercy and caprice of a medical system which may be more concerned with monetary and profit motives. Socialization of health care seems to just that; a provisional or drastic replacement of a corrupted free enterprise economic system in which the needs of a few outweigh the benefits to the many. I still believe that this is a profound social issue if only because many people will debate the purpose and letter of freedom, if told what to do, how to live, what to eat, or how best to preserve and maintain good health. Yes, nationalized health care will and does entail these concerns unbelievably. That some people would like their medical bills, regardless of authenticity, validity, or necessity paid by the federal government really means that American society would like to double or even the triple the three prevailing tax rates or even the property tax rates across the nation. I, again, like some other commenters to this article, was convinced that millions of dollars a day spent for the war in Iraq, in addition to reports of a trillion dollar national debt was sufficient to kill any notions of a national health care with or without low affordable premiums for the American public until the latest economic reports indicated that there was, indeed, a federal surplus and that the national debt had declined significantly. From my experience within the healthcare and insurance industries, I have reviewed and anaylzed those not so rare and increasingly prevalent cases of the rare ailments and instances in which parents must incur six figures, hundreds of thousands of dollars for the care and well-being of an infant. But these are rare and are testament that health care would still have to be meted and administered upon a case by case basis. If the American people truly believe that even routine medical care or otherwsie known as well-care visits can and should be afforded by everyone at federal expense, then perhaps that will be the direction that we follow as a nation. Maybe if not for NAFTA and other global economies of scale that necessarily export jobs, American industries, labor and wages, I would believe that the free enterprise system supported the wave and movement for a nationalized health care system. DOES ANYONE EVER ASK THE QUESTION IF WE AS AMERICANS ARE STILL COMPETENT TO PROVIDE AND ADMINISTER HEALTH CARE? Why does it seem as though we neglect this question in favor of reaping the benefits of a socialized or nationalized system? Admittedly, I chose accounting, law, and possibly even my own creative writing as careers instead of medical or engineering school. What will we choose when we lose so much faith and confidence in American health care and medicine that we prefer to rely upon foreign care if still within North America? It is entirely too personal and social an issue to be debated entirely upon a political forum. I prefer holistic remedies, natural herbal and mineral remedies, osteopathic treatments. Will these too be afforded by the federal government? With whose approval? And at what cost? Reasonable and customary? Or capitated, let's say, for some notion of a doctor's and hospital's formulary? If socialization is within our future, let's vote for universal military service, a universal bill for human and fundamental rights (to include more than just health care provided at government expense), mandatory universal education beyond secondary school, universal volunteerism, and universal preservation of economic markets that provide jobs and income.

Maybe I just should some research before I state this BUT...if not mistaken the Doctors at the Mayo Healthcare system in Minnesota are all salaried. I have also heard the costs are 30% less than in other hospitals due to that fact and the efficiency of the system. If I'm correct, the statement salaried Doctors have no incentive does not stand true, as Mayo is rated number two behind John Hopkins in healthcare.

Ann, you make a very good point.

Lynn, what if all doctors were salaried? Maybe this could be part of the solution. If all doctors were salaried, then we would probably get BETTER care! Honestly! Instead of trying to get through as many patients as possible as fast as possible, they would actually LISTEN to you! They would still get paid a lot.

our health care is in crisis we need to do something!

I think it'd be interesting if we were to lock pharmaceutical sales costs at a maximum profit level (as in, if it costs $10 to make, you can't sell it for more than $15, or something), and make it so that people can get health care they can't afford without having to just take emergency care and then default out of paying for it that way. If government regulation is necessary because we don't have any human decency left, so be it.

Vivian P.

I posed the questions... Think about them... What do you think would be a good solution?

Ashton

What do you mean by:
If government regulation is necessary because we don't have any human decency left, so be it.

Can you explain?

Micheal H. makes some very good points.

Socialized medicine is what you are talking about not Universal health care call it what it is. I don't think we will have socialized medicine in this country very soon.

Now that said. What would be wrong with an Insurance similar to Medicare and Medicaid combined? WITH A TRUST FUND that the politicians could not touch.

Insurance is much different than Socialism in that the Doctors and Hospitals are not hired by the government. Insurance companies would put form a pool to supply coverage. Doctors and Hospitals would remain independant of government. The government would pay the premiums or most of them with the individual paying a nominal sum. Would cover Dr. care, Hosp. and Meds. Meds would be purchased and paid for in the same manner as Medicare Plan D

Cost to Taxpayers. ????? Cost to insured - not too much Cost to Government ?????

George

I am not talking about anything in particular... I am trying to help people think about WHY they think what they think, HOW they think it would actually work, WHAT would happen to the system as a whole if their ideas were actually realized...

I am commenting when I think someone has made some good points towards their position; sometimes I'm trying to point out a flaw.

I do not, right now, have a view as I see problems with every solution. I am hoping that this discussion may help me formulate a solution that doesn't have too many ramifications.

I absolutely believe we should have a national healthcare plan available to everyone. How to do it, I just don't know. I do know if it were decided to start it, someone could figure out how to do it. The Canadians managed it. Many other countries have. We should be able to figure it out.

Here's a question for those opposed the universal health care. How would you feel about a law that makes it illegal to charge an uninsured patient more than the lowest amount charged any insurance company or HMO for the same procedure or service? The law would of course have to be written to disallow any writing off the amount due from the insurance company to reduce the actual amount accepted as payment in full.

Honestly, I think the government should not pay for health care.
I think the government should regulate the industries that are
profitting from the healthcare business...They should hold doctors
to that oath of helping people, not raping people out of their money
to start, next would have to be the administrators of hospitals, and
the health insurance companies after that...it seems to be all about
the money, not all about a healthy America!!!

No I don't think it is the governments job to provide healthcare for everyone.

Look at the U.S. Postal Service -- the government running a pretty efficient system, plus we have private options as well.

So, yes, it can be done, health care for everyone in a government system, plus private options -- this is a reality in many countries, and it works.

I feel this is the only way to make health care affordable as a society -- today the insurance companies are making obscene profits from our health (and sickness).

I'm Canadian...so I'm spoiled.... our HC system is far from perfect... but at least I have never been in the situation of having to choose between food & a doctor for my kids... or been bankrupted by unexpected medical issues

seems to me that if the $$ that's going towards insurance went toward one system, you'd have a good start towards funding a public system....

I'm interested in the cancer survival rates you mentioned... do those include all the people without insurance who don't get treatment until its too late?

I think it is horrifying that a country as wealthy and powerful as the US would be okay with having 47 million people without health care! It seems inhumane to me - it greatly reduces my opinion of the country as a whole; I'm sure I'm not the only one.

"The Government" already provides health care to many Americans through the Medicare and state Medicaid programs. I agree that the Federal Government should not be in the health care business. However, State and Federal governments have been administering health care for decades through these programs.

I'd like to see States expand Medicaid to provide basic health care for all of its citizens. Right now, many of the working poor are getting their basic care through emergency rooms, which are horribly expensive to cities and taxpayers. If these people had low-cost or no-cost (sliding scale) public health centers where they could receive the same care for a fraction of the cost of an emergency room, the system could potentially pay for itself. By basic health care, I mean a place to go for immunizations and common complaints that a general practitioner or family doctor would normally treat.

Another thing I'd like to see is for states to offer a group insurance plan for people in the middle - again with a sliding payment scale according to income. Working with private insurers, the states could get insurance coverage for those people not covered under employer plans (or self-employed) who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to pay for individual coverage.

We have a common law for common good, and I am happy that my tax dollars pay for the continued health and infrastructure of my community.

Personally:

I work full-time. My company does not offer insurance because they are small and have individual insurance. My husband also works full-time. He does have company insurance but it is AWFUL! I joined his insurance for one month and then found out I had to pay $350/month premium and a $5000 deductible. If I were to get pregnant, I would have to pay the $5000 before they would cover any pre or post natal care. It was not the solution so I got off the insurance. I cannot afford to pay for my own health insurance because it is so high. Working for a small company, I do not make enough to pay for health insurance (over $275) and my monthly expenses.

I just found out I am pregnant. So, I am scrambling to get insurance. Thankfully, Illinois provides insurance on a sliding payment scale according to income for moms and babies.

If insurance was not so expensive, I would already have insurance and this pregnancy wouldn't have started as a stressor. So, I think that this is one problem that the government should work to improve. I know that personally, $90/week comes out of my wages for taxes. With that extra $90, I would be able to put that towards insurance. Maybe that is part of the solution. Not to mention that the lack of insured is an epidemic in this country.

If you want Pharmacuetical costs to go down. Stop exporting them unitl the european countries remove price controls. The price controls they put on them make us pay more. We pay for 85% R&D while the others enjoy the benefits of our research.

why not have it like canada, or something to that effect.
my brother in law had arm broke with surgery, broke in accident, lady has no insurance, so he sued her,he agree with hospital to pay them up front bit by bit, and they cut prices down to what they charge insurance company, and he paid what he could and paid it off when settlement came in

A few points that came up when I researched this a few years ago with my late fiance, who was on disability and an expert on insurance and public med. benefits.

1) It's not a gov't function/It's socialist:
Maybe, maybe not, but this isn't 1800, or even 1900. The same could be said of the majority of current accepted gov't activities from building codes, to licensing airplane pilots. Capitalism is a goodish system but was not handed down by God, or written into the Constitution. Laissez-faire Capitalism has been tried and found lacking by every developed nation on Earth. Every developed nation has adopted a 'safety net.'

2) Assorted criticisms of other national health care systems:
Granted. No system will be perfect, get over it. Almost every other developed nation has opted for a national health care system. While some high-end treatments may be limited, the same is true here. it's just limited by ability to pay. For the population as a whole, national health care seems to work. The US Average life expectancy, and Infant Mortality are among the worst in the developed world (Western Europe and Japan). (South Korea still lags, but is catching up). With a HONEST effort, this is not that hard to do well, if not perfectly.

Does a 60-yr-old CEO 'deserve' better health care than a 24-year-old med student because (s)he has the money/insurance? Some things should transcend capitalism.

One of the hard questions is "Is it better to spend $1M on cancer treatment for one 70-yr-old, or providing primary care for 100 children?"

You have one kidney and 10 people who need it ... decide.


3) How do we pay for it?:
The gov't already pays something over 60% of all health care costs thru Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc. and these are mostly the high-risk, high-expense patients. Most of these programs are very poorly managed. Thru good management practices (the same things the insurance companies do), and the reduced admin costs of a single program, most of the remaining 40% could be funded with the same budget. Add in the proven benefits of good early care reducing expensive later care, and growing the tax base by encouraging entrepreneurs and it probably wouldn't be very expensive at all. A few 'sin taxes' on alcohol, tobacco, fast cars, big motorcycles, meat, etc would probably pay it nicely without gouging the poor. (We might actually reduce costs!) Right now, the insurance companies are getting the cream and leaving the curds for the public.

4) National Health Care and/or price limits on medication would stifle research:
Most fundamental research is already done with public funds. A current problem in the public science community is researchers taking public funds to do research, and then bagging the project and taking the results to a private company for a big payoff. The private companies put the final polish on a structure built at public expense and then claim the whole building.

Private research is inefficient because it is private. The components of many excellent treatments are hidden in private hands because the scientists at Pfizer don't consult with the ones at Merck. The essence of science is community effort. Any publicly funded research should have a contractual protection against the researcher taking the results private. Good researchers don't do it for the money. They don't mind money, but most will take a good lab and a decent living wage over a pill mill and a Lexus. Salk didn't cure polio for the payday.

5) People won't become doctors without the big payday:
We already have a shortage of Doctors, and Nurses. One of the components of an NHS should be assistance for Medical and Nursing students, and for establishing practices in understaffed locations and specialties. I think good medical people would prefer a good solid paycheck and the ability to treat people over the current paper-chase. Most RNs today are administrators rather than care-givers. I personally know several nurses who have quit medicine because they couldn't do their job properly, and couldn't live with the stress and risk of doing it badly. Again, no good doctor does it for the money.

- SB

Yes the feds should provide medical/health care for all citizens! It should be paid for by the gouging insurance compnaies, large business & by a tax that we the taxpayer must pay into. Coverage? Everything that is not simply frivolous cosmetic surgery should be covered.

I think the appropriate thing is Medicare for all citizens, the issue of green card aliens is up in the air but we are not required to start with that also. The problem is that necessary services such as health care and energy providers, should be run non profit.

Ethical business groups (oh, are there many of those left, in the craze of consumerism that capitalism has become in this country?) should be ashamed to salivate over profits made on human misery and need.

When you get past the hype and lies of those wanting every item of human existance on the plate of "the free market" (free to whom?) the statistics of the General Accounting Office show that the original Medicare operates at much less cost for the government than do the new Advantage Plans pushing the private sector into that program. The new and heavily touted Rx Plan called Part D is a farce. I used very little medication in the first year it was in place. However Medicare had given my Part D provider $2000 up front for my medication. (I'm retired totally on SS) Did the Provider have to return the unused amount?

Of course not, that was a gift from the US government for participating. Yet, when the administration reports on this it will not clearly state $375 for cost of Rx and $1625 as a bribe for provider participation. Instead it will point to the terribly high $2000 per year cost of Rx in this country. The Lies of omission.

And if you have more income as a senior than I do, you are now paying far more for your perscriptions than you were before Part D because of higher premiums for less coverage, and higher co-pays. This Part D definitely helped the poorest, but at what true cost, and hurt middle and upper class seniors.

No matter how much Michael Moore may make you queasy, his interviews with people in other countries about their care on full coverage health care, match his interviews with doctors working for these health programs. All positive reports. And their programs can afford to treat tourists as well. One young doctor with a family shared his home while he shared his thoughts. They live very well, he drives a fancy car and his smile when he said that he had never had to turn down a patient or skimp on a patient's treatment or wait an inordinate amount of time to treat a patient or send them to surgery etc was really heartwarming. And patients stated that they had full choice of doctors and could see whomever they pleased.

Think of Universal Health Care not like welfare or a give away program paid by high taxes, but as a fair, overall plan for basic health and major medical care, bought from the government by every citizen at a fair price because no profit markup is added. For example, couldn't you pay $2000 per year more in taxes if that got you full coverage with no deductables, no paperwork, no co-pays and guarenteed service and availability at clinics, private doctors, hospitals, dental offices, hospitals and urgent care centers as well as whatever Rx your doctor wanted for you? If some people with the money for it want expensive elective treatments and surgery, face lifts and the like, they would not be prevented from participating in the free market for such items.

Fear of the unknown and belief in the lies of those who stand to profit keeps America shackled in the same old shuffling medical/pharmacutical cartel that is leaching profits out of those least able to afford it. Health care tied to todays employers, who are free to pull benefits at any time, is a joke. And what about when your job ends and you can't find another... your health care disappears too and welfare must shoulder the load.

The talk about horror stories of long waits, no choice and bad treatment from Universal Health Coverage in other countries compared to our system of profits for the big health corporations is not borne out by statistics on deaths, errors, waits, and patient satisfaction nor on the over all evaluation of US health care, which is now 47th in the world.

Shame on our leaders for being content with this. Big bucks from the health industry keeps their puny consciences silent. We should pay for elections with public funds and stop good governance from being hamstrung by private money and greedy TV corporations. What ever happened to required public service time for political advertising? Gone the way of profiteering in America.

I for one, will not vote for any candidate in 2008 who does not have a strong plan for Universal Health Care. It's time to stop bribing the health industry to cooperate. Let's just pass the laws for ethical treatment for all US Citizens.

Yes, I think the govermement should provide us all with health care. Most other developed countries do. There are a lot of hard working people in this country who don't have health insurance. Right now I don't because I haven't been able to find a job and I got kicked off my parents health insurance once I graduated from college. It's very scary.

"One of the hard questions is "Is it better to spend $1M on cancer treatment for one 70-yr-old, or providing primary care for 100 children?"

You have one kidney and 10 people who need it ... decide."

Huh? This is the problem in the U. S. , we set different values on different people.
This is WRONG. A life, is a life, is a life.

1. I would bet that cancer treatment doesn not cost anywhere near that much under a system of not-for-profit Universal Health Care in any other country. Their government prevents this by passing laws for ceilings on the costs of Rx from US industries. Why don't we pass the same laws, or at least repeal the law written into the reform bill for Medicare which Prohibits collective bargaining for better prices for US citizens through group buying. Did you know that pharmacutical companies and insurance companies WROTE this terrible law and the Republican congress passed it and the President signed it into law with a smirk on his face??????

I'm amazed to read here the idea that we lower our costs by destroying the protections of other human beings in other countries. Sure, why not do that, we are the only super power, let others live as poorly as we do, that will fix it. Disgusting how greed and self-centeredness is pervasive in US thought.

Did you know we are no longer called patients in some hospitals, but rather "consumers"? The final step in and profitization of the health care industry. We are bigger than all the leaders of corporations... why doesn't the public just say NO?

Well it worked in Arkansas when the then Governor Clinton and his administration managed to get it in place. It was fought there too. Lobbyists for the AMA, Insurance companies and Pharms fought it but it won and so did the people.

I think it is absolutely possible to do. I dont really care if it is at the federal or state level. If the states take it on we will see big population shifts based on which states do provide and dont provide.

I once worked in healthcare. The doctors made a choice. If they had a patient who could not afford it, they did not get billed for it. It was a big tax write off for them, the patients (majority of which were senior citizens) received necessary healthcare, and it was all good.

Do to the specialty we checked the obits every week. An elderly man who had problems beyond what we treated was inundated with bills from the other facilities. He had never been in debt prior to that. He became so lost in all this that one day as his wife went to check the mail he shot himself and died. There is no need for this!

Yes it would cut into the profits of certain industries. But it would not be so bad as to destroy companies over it. If anything there will be even more jobs out of this. No I dont think people should be getting purely elective procedures on this system. People who want that could still have the option of paying for additional coverage in order to cover lipo and such or just paying out of pocket. Those people will still be there and those higher fees paid to the docs would certainly help fund some truly needed reconstructive surgery for those really in need. BTW a lot of insurances will no cover weight loss surgeries, guess which ones decided to pay first, government employees. And I dont argue this decision. Obesity can cause a slew of other health problems.

People need to quit dying while waiting on insurance companies to approve their bypasses. People who receive proper preventative care are less likely to wait until it is too late to treat certain conditions.

How to pay for it? Well no more Bridges to Nowhere. No more kickbacks, no more big tax breaks to companies that are pulling in billions in PROFIT per QUARTER, no more giving contracts to "friendly" wink wink companies over and over that are being paid too much for too little. No more paying private soldiers of fortune more in one month than our own soldiers make in a year.

This is a really great country. And we have the ability to see that no one is homeless. We have the ability to see that no one goes hubgry. We have the ability to see that those who need medical care get it. And we dont!

Also, someone mentioned providing it for those who work. I dont work. I cant work, medically I am unable to work. May you NEVER know what this is like and I tried so hard to keep working, we adapted the duties, we lowered my hours, we tried both my office and I tried so hard and I cannot manage it. I am very very lucky in having a husband who does work and provide and even insurance. But if something happened to him I would be up a creek. Under your concept I would not be eligible for health care if something happened to him. What then should I wait until my kids go check the mail?

People who truly abuse the system need to be stopped. I think with welfare if we can get better educations, decent child care, and yes health is very important if you or your child is constantly sick you will miss too much work, and jobs that pay more than welfare, even after child care that a whole lot of people will get off of welfare. But please remember not everyone on the system abuses it.

We are the richest country on earth and we should provide health care to everyone. That being said, however, there are a lot of ways it can be done. Oregon had a really good plan at one time. Don't be scared off by people who toss the word "socialized" as if it were some horrid bugaboo. Universal health care is exactly that. Some level of health care for everyone.

If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Healthy people work better, longer. And don't kid yourself. You are paying for the health care of uninsured people now. Even if you yourself have insurance. Only it costs a whole lot more now because they let things go until it's an emergency and use the most expensive care available to them...the Emergency Room.

Everyone should pay something into a health care system as well. Even if it's just a dollar or five dollars or whatever if you're really really poor. Most people can afford to pay some no matter what they say. They afford booze and cigarettes; most (note the most) can afford to contribute something to their own health care.

I would prefer to see something along the lines of medicare. People would be allowed to choose from among a number of different plans put together by the insurance industry and government regulators. The base plan would be the same for everyone. Companies would be forced to keep costs reasonable using economy of scale. Nobody could be turned down, however, there would be catastrophic coverage beyond a certain point. What is/is not covered would be as fully spelled out as humanly possible.

The base plan would include preventive care such as regular check ups, treatment intervention early rather than waiting until it reached crises, etc. This would over time reduce the overall cost. People going to clinics as opposed to the emergency room for day to day care would cut costs as well.

Everyone would pay into the system in some way. Businesses, individuals, etc. Drug companies, doctors, and hospitals would be required to negotiate costs. You would no longer pay $5-10 for an aspirin when a bottle of them costs less than $1 in any drug store.

I don't have all the answers of course. Nowhere near. However, I do believe a workable plan could be put in place. I also know that time has proven that preventive care is cost-effective and that the ER is the least effective way of providing anything but emergency care. I also know that it would be necessary in such a system to restrict certain types of care such as extremely experimental treatments for advanced illnesses. The Oregon plan ran into problems because it listed all treatments then drew a line to include what they could afford. It made more sense to them to provide thousands of children with routine care than one elderly person with a heart transplant, for instance. These are hard decisions.

It makes no sense to have tens of millions of people with no insurance. As I said, people should have to pay in. Those who work can also have medical savings accounts, etc. But nobody should be denied necessary health care because they can't afford it. That's ridiculous. In the long run it costs us a fortune to run a system where the only people who matter are the fat cats we allow to write our laws.

First off, let me say that I am a legal US citizen who works 60+ hours a week and I have no health insurance. We need to look at where the money is going. Why do hospitals charge patients $250.00 for a pair of crutches they only paid $85.00 for? Where does the extra markup go? I understand that the staff/facutly need to be financially compensated for their work, supplies need to be purchased, and all the intangibles need to be paid for (phone service, water, sewer, electricity, etc.,) but the percentage of markup on most products/services at the hospitals is ridiculous! Medical bills could be cut by at least 30% if they streamlined the "slush" profits. These slush profits go towards footing the bill for people without money/insurance. This needs to change.

Now, I'm relatively certain that the average working class doesn't mind too much helping the unfortunate, yet hard-working lower-middle class in their healthcare expenses. I never once complained that the money I paid to hospitals (when I had insurance) went to help other people who are in a similar situation to the one I'm in now. Students, single parents, people who work for smaller companies without health benefits, and people like me who are independant contractors; all of us need some health care once in a while. The biggest problem seems to be the people who are taking advantage of the system. People who choose not to work, and dare I say it...? Illegal aliens. Whether we pay out of pocket or through an insurance plan, most of those extra charges on our bills go towards providing health care to those who do not want to contribute to society. If hospitals in the US declined care to illegal immigrants, that alone would save the rest of us hard-working tax-paying citizens millions of dollars every year; perhaps even billions.

I think that there is a way for the government to sponsor nationwide health care, but I don't think the doctors would go for it. Figure out a way (through taxes, or other means,) to get the basic bills of the hospitals paid (including utilities, salaries, supplies, etc.) and then all care to patients could be free of charge, but here's the kicker...Free of charge ONLY to tax-paying US citizens. It wouldn't be that difficult to set up a national database for hospitals to check citizenship and tax status by simply running a check on our Social Security numbers. This could guarantee basic health care (including vision and dental,) to all US citizens. I do believe that certain medical procedures could/should be kept in the private market, such as elective cosmetic surgery and other non-essential "luxury" medical services. (Obviously there would be free cosmetic surgery etc. for those who need it for related medical problems.)

I'm sure there are many components in the plan that I have not mentioned, but I think it could work if our elected officials listen to their constituents and make an honest attempt at (another) reformation of the health care system in the US. After all, isn't that the job of our government; to better our country in all ways possible?

I know this got really long, but thanks for reading my two cents!

Absolutely

I do think the govenment should offer something. There is something wrong with a system that caters to only the down and out.

The US ***must*** join the civilized world and provide universal comprehensive health car for all **citizens**. Absolutely nothing for illegals or even green card holders (unless actually married to a *citizen*). They can vote to give *us* the same health care they already get through the wonderful congressional plan they and their families enjoy while some of us hard-working citizens choose between food and prescriptions or even doctor visits that are very much needed. Add to it full mental health care (that does not limit talk therapy to less than one visit a week for an entire year).

It is a total disgrace that members of Congress enjoy complete health care with minuscule copays while many citizens do without entirely.

I personally am deeply ashamed that the United States (the country that I love) allows people to die because they cannot afford helth care. How can a nation with such wealth be so callous?

What would I do?

First, I would not allow the drug companies to advertise. They could use the billions they saved to reduce the cost of drugs for everyone. Let our doctors tell us what drugs we should be taking.

Next, I would not allow drug companies or insurance companies to lobby, to give one cent to our politicians (I would outlaw lobbying altogether, but that's another issue).

Next, I would repeal that clause in the Medicare drug program that prevents the government from negotiating drug costs for Medicare patients. Was there ever a more blatant example of corruption in the legislative process?

Then I would make it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage (or charge more)to those with pre-existing conditions. Insurance, by its very nature, is supposed to distribute funds from those who are not using to those who are. What kind of system allows insurance companies to cover only the healthy?

Next, I would not allow health care providers to charge uninsured patients more than insured patients pay. Was there ever a system more backward than that? Those who cannot afford insurance must pay more for care than those who can?

But all of these actions should only be precursors to a system that provides care for everyone. I have never understood how the American people can justify to themselves a system that allows people to die because they are poor.

I lived in Australia for 12 years and I won't say that their health care system is perfect; there is probably no perfect system. Everyone get free treatment, but they can't choose their own doctors and might be seen by a different doctor every time they are sick. They can't have a private room in the hospital. But private insurance is also available (and at a reasonable price) for those who want to be able to choose their own doctors and stay in private rooms, etc. Hospital rooms were not as luxurious as ours. Beds weren't automatic (my mother's nursing home here doesn't have automatic beds either). You had to pay extra for television and there were no phones in the rooms. But I wasn't herded out of the hospital as soon as I could barely stand and get dressed either. When my son was born, they actually kept me in the hospital for 5 days after his birth, trying to help me get milk to flow.

I am keeping my mouth shut cause the whole heathcare system ticks me off sometimes

No! I have to agree with Dragonsoul. As a government employee, every time we take over a program, we add to the problem, not to the solution. If we (the gov't) Have to take care of everyone's needs (now are considered "rights"), the average worker would take home an average of 18-20 cents to every dollar.
Why do thinkCanadians are coming here for dianostic testing? The Wait!!!!!!
Besides we do have a National Insurance plan - Medicare. For the working poor as well as those on Assistance, we have State and Federally funded Medicaid. I honestly don't see how the government can cover every Citizen and Legal Resident, when 15-18% of all Healthcare costs go to Illegal Aliens and their kids. We can't deny them treatment, of course. But what to do is above my pay grade.

Dragon Soul, I agree with you.....

You made a point that was me to a T. I have not been to the doctor in 2 years because I could not afford to go. The only time I would even CONSIDER going is if I were deathly ill. I was in an accident and probably should have gone to the hospital. I refused though because the idea of paying $1000s made me sicker than I was injured. That's the problem. With so many people avoiding going because of costs, it is more costly in the long run.

I went to a clinic yesterday to get a pregnancy test and apply for Illinois' insurance for expectant mothers that do not have insurance. The doctor asked me when my last pap was (sorry if TMI) and I said 2 years ago. She "tsk-tsk"ed me and shook her head. She judged me because I cannot afford to pay for insurance premiums or to go to the doctor to get the tests done and lab fees and everything else. It is $75 JUST TO WALK INTO THE DOCTOR'S OFFICE! NOT EVEN BE SEEN!!!!!!!!!!! That is outrageous. And, the kicker.... I'm the average American. I graduated college and haven't found my "first real job" that has insurance for me. So, until then, I work my hours and pay my bills and taxes but cannot afford the luxury of having insurance.

That's one of the problems. Insurance has become a luxury for too many Americans rather than a necessity or a "right". Priorities in America are a little out of touch.

Thank all of you for your comments. Most of them are well thought out and written from the heart. I really appreciate it!

Some of the earlier comments were about getting rid of insurance companies altogether... Does anyone else think that this may be possible?

One of the comments mentioned that costs could go down if doctors were on salary, as opposed to a per patient basis... This wouldn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't make very much money... Could this work and lower costs?

As long as the "government" sets the "parts per million" allowable toxins in our foods, drugs, and environment, then yes, they should be their to remove the profit from the treatment of the illnesses those toxins create.

Please be nice!

Nobody here needs to be treated like that!

I would really appreciate if Lyndon J. would remove this comment!

Lyndon,

Sorry I inconvienced you with facts. I guess you want to be in charge of the Socialized States of America. You are just as ignorant as your post makes you seem

It is okay Heather. You have to expect that from people who have limited brains and cant process thought.

Publius still, it is uncalled for and inappropriate. This is just a discussion. Ideas, provoking thought, that's what this article is all about. If you disagree with someone, fine. Explain why and make your points in a rational manner.

Getting mad and calling people names never solves anything. It harms this article and my fellow gather friends. Nobody ever provoked someone into thinking about their point of view or changed someone's mind using this "technique".

I'm not a believer in the bandwagon but I think if almost every developed nation has universal health care we ought to take a look at what they're doing instead of rejecting it out of hand.

I belong to an HMO with salaried doctors. I'm reasonably satisfied with their standard of care. In order to get the most from the system you have to be persistent and work at it. Sounds like what people have to do with other forms of health insurance. :) A friend of mine who's been critical of my provider for many years recently has spent a lot of time taking his mother to appointments at the clinic I go to. He was shocked. He discovered that she was getting better care than his wife and kids had gotten from the fee for service plan he's had for years.

I finally got him to admit that the problem is that health care in this country sucks. In the big picture there are little bright spots but it's mostly a picture of a cesspit.

I am very sorry to anyone who may have read Lyndon J.'s comment and are offended by it. If this comment is not removed soon, I may have to flag my own article.

Heather LOVED it and yes every person should have the health care they need

I don't think that the government should provide universal healthcare, because that just gives them more control. We don't need to give them more control. Do we really want them to tell us what docs we can see and when? I think not.

Yes, the government should run the not-for-profit system, and services should be provided to all free or with a minimal co-pay. The current system leaves too many uninsured and is the most costly on earth, while providing health benefits that do not equal some third world nations. It is a scandal, and one that menaces the health of all. America also has the highest proportion of its population in overcrowded prisons. And in 2006 and 2007 3.2 million families will lose their homes to mortgage foreclosure and will suffer a myriad of illnesses related to that major life trauma.

All of this is a formula for an epidemic of massive proportions, even if we do not become the target of germ warfare. Fear and pain have us in a mighty grip, and most Americans are on prescription meds, often for pain. Add to this mix poor diet and lack of exercise, massive obesity, rising rates of diabetes and asthma, and you have the perfect storm for a health disaster even larger than the daily one that now afflicts so many. Even the rich who feel no obligation to the poor and the shrinking middle class will not escape the results of this harsh and uncaring system.

Government is constituted to help us do the things that we cannot do separately, the things that make a better world and are NOT provided well by "market forces." We are the most interdependent species on the planet. What we do to others -- or don't do for others -- will be done to us. For the health of all of us, and longer life, and better infant survival, we need a federal health system NOW. Even greedy employers should get behind this. Since money is the only value they understand, they need to know that a unversal national health system will save THEM money! Are ya listenin', Walmart?!?

Government health care should be provided for everyone. However, the US is particularly unsuited to this kind of public service. However well and economically the system is devised, subsequent Republican administrations will loot the program until it fails. This will then be cited as proof that single payer doesn't work. Why do I think this? Conservative governments in Ontario, Canada, did just that.
It's also true that foreign companies, such as Toyota, are locating factories in Canada in spite of huge incentives offered in the US. One of the major reasons? The cost of providing health insurance to their employees.

No form of government health care can work until our "representatives" there learn that the problem in health care is that of controlling the costs and NOT in who or what is paying for it. The main difficulty in health care is society's willingness to accept two dollar cotton balls, five hundred dollar plastic tubing, and twenty dollar Kleenex as "normal costs"! And before we demand that our government provide our health care, perhaps we should investigate why so many Canadians come to OUR country for health care and pay for it from their own pockets! Or why people in the UK must wait two years for a root canal.

I believe that the government should provide EMERGENCY health care to all of its citizens. If you land in a hospital due to an unexpected seizure or due to an accident (automobile or otherwise), the emergency room care should be subsidized by the government. All other care that insurance takes care of should be sought privately. Since our government sees fit to issue emergency care worldwide in disasters, it should give the same benefit to its own citizens in everyday emergencies. All of the glamour of health care should be taken care of individually. That includes perscriptions, alternative therapies, and all general care.

I worked for an insurance company in the past which was selling health insurance in England as some were not happy with the health care system there. As we are not a socialist nation, I'm torn on such issues. I'm fortunate to have a fairly decent group health plan where I work now. My husband is in the VA health care system. Considering the funding issues the VA has, I'd hate to see what would happen with a Universal Health Care System. As I said, I'm torn.

The only involvment the goevernment should take is the run away cost of health care. It has outgrown most everyones pocketbook. even employers aren't able to afford the rising cost of health insurance today. Why, pray tell, should someone who has a health problem have to die because he doen't have money. I agree that health care people need money to live. However that's not where its all going. The big investers in hospitals and the diagnostic clinics are making health care unreachable. Also is that CAT scan necessary?

Absolutely not, We'd end up with a system like Britain or France where only the rich get decent care, there are no decent doctors and appointments take 18 months to get. AND we would be paying out thousands more in taxes than we are currently paying for healthcare.

YES health care should be universal and paid through the central government... in such a rich country we should take care of all of our citizens. It is a shame the way things are now...