[DarrenWright]

Originally Posted by UKRNinUSA

I think your real problem is with anyone criticizing the US system. And your method of pointing-the-finger serves to distract from the real issues. "Well it can't be true, because he/she said it and he/she is a bad person" a la Carl Rove MO.
The facts are that we don't have universal health care and we pay way more than other countries for the same meds because of the overwhelming lobbying power of the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies. That is why I don't think things will change until we adjust the balance of power eg public funding of political campaigns. What was all that about government by the people for the people -right now it seems that it is government by the corporations for the corporations.

I have a problem with someone hypocritically criticizing the US system, and I didn't bring her into the discussion.

[HM2Viking]

Current System
Current Average wage 30$/hour or 4800/month.
Real wage value is about 40 dollars per hour benefits included or 6400 dollars per month.

Single Payer
Under single payer the new wage value would rise from 4800/month to 5595$/month. (Adding 795$ to base wage. This is the value of the family coverage with a Canadian expense ratio of 17%.) Negotiated wages would go into your pocket not the health insurance companies.

Family health insurance cost at 10% payroll tax would be 560 dollars/month. You and your family would end up with 398 dollars more each month to spend. There would obviously need to be some tweaking around the edges for single people without dependents and the working poor but the central point remains that more money would be available for your family on a monthly basis. I think a properly designed single payer system would be a boon to the middle class. Part of the bargain to put this together would be to get corporations to agree to roll the benefit costs over to employee wages in exchange for taking the cost of health care off corporate balance sheets.

[pickledpepperRN]

Upgrading To National Health Insurance (Medicare 2.0)The Case For Eliminating Obsolete Private Health Insurance

Private health insurance was an idea that worked during part of the last century; it will not succeed through the 21st Century. With jobs increasingly service-based and short-term, the large employment-based risk pools that made this insurance system possible no longer exist. Medical care has become more effective and more essential to the ordinary person, but also more costly and capital-intensive. The multiple private insurance carriers that emerged during the last century can no longer provide a sound basis for financing our modern health care system.
Alone among the nations of the world, the U.S. has relied upon private insurance to cover the majority of its population. In the mid-20th Century, when medical care accounted for barely 1% of our gross national product, medical technology was limited, and jobs lasted for a lifetime, health care could be financed through such employment-based, premium-financed health insurance. But the time for private insurance has passed.
Health care has now become a major part of our national expenditures. The premium for an individual now averages more than $4,000 per year, while a good family policy averages more than $10,000 per year, comparable to the minimum wage and nearly one-fourth of the median family income. As a consequence, though the US spends far more on health care than any other nation, we leave millions of our people without any coverage at all. And those who do have coverage increasingly find that their plans are inadequate, exposing them to financial hardship and even bankruptcy when illness strikes....

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/13/2498/

[pickledpepperRN]

After Years of Labor Gains, Autoworkers Face Losses

Larry Boynton is slowly coming to a realization that would have been unthinkable for an American autoworker just a decade ago: that he will have to accept deep cuts in medical benefits or risk one day losing his job.
"We are almost understood that we are going to give up something, especially with health care," said Boynton, 56, a Chrysler worker from Detroit. "It's like they are slowing pulling the cover off you, and you got to be happy you got a little bit on."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071601559.html

[pickledpepperRN]

Union member Steve Skvara who spoke about losing his health care and part of his pension when questioning John Edwards at the Democratic debate talks to Chris Matthews about those issues. Matthews doesn't seem to know when someone qualifies for Medicare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5SSyS5n6U4&NR=1

[PHC]

Originally Posted by UKRNinUSA

I think your real problem is with anyone criticizing the US system. And your method of pointing-the-finger serves to distract from the real issues. "Well it can't be true, because he/she said it and he/she is a bad person" a la Carl Rove MO.
The facts are that we don't have universal health care and we pay way more than other countries for the same meds because of the overwhelming lobbying power of the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies. That is why I don't think things will change until we adjust the balance of power eg public funding of political campaigns. What was all that about government by the people for the people -right now it seems that it is government by the corporations for the corporations.

Right on! I totally agree with you!

[pickledpepperRN]

Remember Universal Health Care?
Ads In Iowa Target Democratic Front-Runners On Health Insurance

http://nationaljournal.com/adspotlight/

[pickledpepperRN]

Americans Want Leaders to Address Coverage for Uninsured, Poll Shows

A new poll shows providing health-insurance coverage for more Americans is a top priority for U.S. adults and a majority believe it is the government's duty to ensure all Americans have adequate coverage.

The Wall Street Journal Online/Harris Interactive health-care poll, conducted Sept. 10-12, asked how much Americans trust policy makers to come up with good policies for improving and reforming U.S. health care.

Overall, the Democrats are more trusted than the Republicans (39% vs. 26%), the poll shows, but both parties as well as all of the leading 2008 presidential candidates included in the survey have seen a decline in the public's trust since February 2007....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119014251792831362.html

[lamazeteacher]

WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THIS CRITICAL ISSUE, TOMORROW, THURS., SEPT. 27, 2007 WHEN MICHAEL MOORE WILL APPEAR ON OPRAH'S SHOW, WITH A HEALTHCARE INSURANCE LOBBYIST AND TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH CEO'S OF THOSE COMPANIES WILL BE AIRED. LET'S GIVE OUR OPINIONS AFTER THE PROGRAM TO OPRAH AT HER WEBSITE. HERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ACTIVISM OF NURSES TO BECOME KNOWN. WE ARE STRONG, ON THE FRONT LINES OF THE CONTROVERSY.

HEAR US ROAR!!!!!!

The worst idea I've heard, is the one for everyone to bankroll their own healthcare with their savings. All tax protected savings at this time, are taxed later (and higher), when we're retired - if still alive!! The banks benefit most from that plan! I know I certainly can't save the amount of money at present prices, for a catastrophic illness/accident. In the future those prices will be in line with inflation, and even less affordable!
There is no free ride, so the comment from someone about that, is doomed to failure, too.

I do think money witheld from our paychecks for our healthcare, needs to be utilized without employer or insurance company input. They are the conduits, not the drivers of a good healthcare program. When jobs are lost due to illness (and there has been no legislation against that), the cost of COBRA is prohibitive.

Employers discharge employees over 55 due to high extra insurance company premiums charged, and they won't allow Medicare to be the primary insurer of those over 65! Seniors are disserved by those companies more than employees whose spouses have healthcare coverage for them.

The only qualified people to dictate healthcare, is providers of it, no matter what party affiliation they have!! This country's practise of voter proclamation of party affiliation, in order to choose candidates, has outlived its purpose, as has the collegial system.

Originally Posted by spacenurse

Americans Want Leaders to Address Coverage for Uninsured, Poll Shows

A new poll shows providing health-insurance coverage for more Americans is a top priority for U.S. adults and a majority believe it is the government's duty to ensure all Americans have adequate coverage.

The Wall Street Journal Online/Harris Interactive health-care poll, conducted Sept. 10-12, asked how much Americans trust policy makers to come up with good policies for improving and reforming U.S. health care.

Overall, the Democrats are more trusted than the Republicans (39% vs. 26%), the poll shows, but both parties as well as all of the leading 2008 presidential candidates included in the survey have seen a decline in the public's trust since February 2007....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119014251792831362.html

[lamazeteacher]

Canada started their healthcare programs province by province. I happened to be in Windsor, Ontario, Canada when the first one was created by 7 physicians. Starting smaller is better than taking on a whole country of millions at the beginning. Contrasting plans for care would allow innovation and evaluation
Decentralization also allows peculiarities (such as hurricane Katrina) to dictate the budget for healthcare for all. We also need to care about others, rather than resent our tax dollars being used for those far away (such as in Iraq). National funds need to be available for veterans' healthcare, no matter where it's provided. When few soldiers were injured and dying, expensive facilities decayed. We need to maintain those facilities for everyone's use, and provide specialized care within reasonable distances, not in the hospital next door.
I do feel that replication of expensive machinery is a waste, and favor regional purchases of diagnostic devices, so that each hospital doesn't vie for them.
Hospitals claim to be non profit, when everyone knows they distribute their profits according to the administrators of those facilities' wishes (and greed).

Originally Posted by spacenurse

Upgrading To National Health Insurance (Medicare 2.0)The Case For Eliminating Obsolete Private Health Insurance

Private health insurance was an idea that worked during part of the last century; it will not succeed through the 21st Century. With jobs increasingly service-based and short-term, the large employment-based risk pools that made this insurance system possible no longer exist. Medical care has become more effective and more essential to the ordinary person, but also more costly and capital-intensive. The multiple private insurance carriers that emerged during the last century can no longer provide a sound basis for financing our modern health care system.
Alone among the nations of the world, the U.S. has relied upon private insurance to cover the majority of its population. In the mid-20th Century, when medical care accounted for barely 1% of our gross national product, medical technology was limited, and jobs lasted for a lifetime, health care could be financed through such employment-based, premium-financed health insurance. But the time for private insurance has passed.
Health care has now become a major part of our national expenditures. The premium for an individual now averages more than $4,000 per year, while a good family policy averages more than $10,000 per year, comparable to the minimum wage and nearly one-fourth of the median family income. As a consequence, though the US spends far more on health care than any other nation, we leave millions of our people without any coverage at all. And those who do have coverage increasingly find that their plans are inadequate, exposing them to financial hardship and even bankruptcy when illness strikes....

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/13/2498/