[BSNtobe2009]

Originally Posted by sanctuary

Zash..., you are articulate and present well designed arguments. However, I'm not clear how taking the 30% paid into health insurance away from the management of insurance and putting it into health care would disadvantage the poor and downtrodden. Our insurance CEO's are among the most expensive executives in the world, yet add nothing to the economy or the health care system. Medicare overhead cost is 3%. If we were all on (a single-payor communist plot to destroy the verisimitude of the Constitional intentions of our Founding Fathers plan) Medicare, the only people that would be disadvantaged would be those in an industry that is an unnecessary drain on our ecenomy. All would have equally affordable healthcare, wich could be suplimented by you if you wanted more or different. There is a disconnect between reality and ideology, but my, your words sparkle in the sun.

CEO's, in general, are grossly overpaid. Another problem with our economy.

How you can pay 10's of millions of dollars to a CEO who runs a company that is LOSING MONEY is beyond me. If he doesn't cause the company to generate a profit, then why in the hell is he getting a bonus at all?

[cabkrun]

Originally Posted by augigi

Actually, you quoted me but I never said anyone was "dying waiting for care in Europe".

I also said that I think our socialised system is better than the alternative.

Sorry, wasn't my intention to "quote you". I wasn't really referring to anything you said, so should have posted a separate reply. I seek your forgiveness

[cabkrun]

Originally Posted by Freedom42

To answer Timothy's earlier question: Yes, I do think Timothy -- and all taxpayers -- should be required to foot the bill for a universal payer system. Just as we require Timothy -- and all other taxpayers -- to foot the bill now for public schools, the roads we drive on, etc.

You've got to do the math: If this system could save $200 billion a year, think about how much money that would free up for the taxpayers.

As for whether universal payer would make the price of a GM automobile go down by $1,000, I suggest that yes, it would: The big 3 are being creamed by foreign competition, and as I noted earlier, that foreign competition -- Toyota -- is building its new plant in Canada to take advantage of its national health care system for workers.

So who loses? If you're hung up on whether universal payer would make the price of a car go down, I say yes, it would. And consider all the taxes we've lost by seeing those Toyota jobs go to Canada. It's a global economy. Our health care system is harming American businesses, and not just automakers.

But beyond the economics, I ask this: Why would a nurse disagree with the notion that the most vulnerable people in our society are entitled to health care? Why should health care be only for the privileged?

Amen. And what people don't understand about the Canadian model, is that it ISN'T RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT!! People pay into a universal fund, health care is administerd by a PRIVATE business, which gets paid thru this fund by the Government. I am also tired of people claiming that the government is so much more corrupt and inefficient than private corporations. That just isn't so true. I've worked in govt. and private sector. Private sector companies waste money and are inefficient too. Don't tell me that Wall Street punishes such things for private companies, because that isn't true either. Wall Street is run by private companies, and is just a big old Las Vegas for the rich.

[Shamira Aizza]

There is a lot to read, and I apologize if I repeat something, but the Canadian population roughly matches the state of California, and over 75% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US border where they can obtain US healthcare.

In spite of the fact that Canada has a remarkably smaller population to provide care for, the waits are atrocious, the choices are extremely limited, and many services simply are not available. There is a reason that the number one hospital for Canadian knee replacements is in Cleveland. There is also a reason that Canada is not trending toward a more socialized system, and are instead opening doors for more privatized provision of health care.

The US is facing the same thing that socialized countries are facing; a dramatic increase in an aging population requiring more services while the younger population is not expanding as quickly to provide the tax base to pay for a socialized system. This will lead to rationing of health care, and a remarkable change in our ethical practices. Currently people shriek with indignance if a service is not fully covered or is denied by their current payor; in a socialized system, there won't even be a code or a provider for these services anymore because no-one will pay for it at all.

Additional endless problems will plague America if we move toward a similar system, which will include the reduction of wages for providers, leading to an exacerbation of the nursing shortage, and it will reduce the incentive for physicians to see as many patients, resulting in longer waits and further distances to travel to see specialists.

More importantly, it will eliminate the incentive for entrepreneurship; a country that restricts private reimbursement for 'new-and-improved' methods does not show much incentive for improving methods of delivery. For example, the implantable Abiocor was developed in Canada...but the inventor had to market the device in the US because it was not approved in Canada...due to cost, not regulation. Be prepared for an age limit to be placed on you for heart transplants (no age limit in the US). Expect the survivable age of preemies to start trending back upwards...no more resuscitation attempts on anyone younger than 29 weeks...but I digress back to rationing of health care.

There is a reason folks come to the US for high quality care, and employment. The only aspect of socialized health care that surpasses the American system is the preventative influence. That said, there is no obstacles for Americans to access any number of preventative programs to improve their health and lives...but we are supposed to be about choice, eh? It's our bodies, we decide what we want to do with them. Well, so they say.

[BSNtobe2009]

Originally Posted by Shamira Aizza

There is a lot to read, and I apologize if I repeat something, but the Canadian population roughly matches the state of California, and over 75% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US border where they can obtain US healthcare..

You hit the nail on the head with this one...I think that is why it works in Canada extremely well. Canada is one of the few industrialized nations where Universal Healthcare has actually worked, and I, like you, believe it's due to the fact that their population is not only low, but it's very spread out throughout the country, and that is why it works.

The ER's are packed here even when people are having to pay for it...I can't imagine what would happen if they didn't...you would see it be even more packed for no other reason that people don't want to take off work to deal with a paper cut.

[cabkrun]

I would like to see studies that back these speculative thoughts up.
If Universal Health Care in Europe and Asia is failing, why are we so far down on the list of health of citizens?
Canadians (or Europeans) running over the US for health care is BS and a myth. Show me some info on this supposed fact.

[Jezziemis]

BSNtoBE... I dont quite think you read that post correctly... the poster you just quoted as "hitting it on the head" was saying that the US healthcare system is better than the Canadian one. Maybe I am misinterpreting you, and if I did then my apologies.

Here is the thing... Capitalism WORKS... Socialism does not... earlier a poster asked the question as to how socialism applies to the topic of universal healthcare... and I would like to ask said poster, do you know what the definition of socialism is? Socialism is any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. In other words, universal healthcare is just the begining of a socialized economy.

I believe it is NOT the governments role to pay for everyones problems. Rather that should be the community, friends, family and neighbors job to join forces, raise money to help those in need.

I just recently read an article that said that in many of those European countries, groups with a skyrocketing cost of healthcare are being left out to dry. I think it was in the Neatherlands, any babies born before 25 or 22 weeks (two differnt sources saying two differnt numbers) are pretty much left to die because the costs are so high and the insurance will not pay for health care. It is the same for disabled babies. Also, in the case of the elderly, they are being left out to dry because its not cost effective to spend tons of money for a sick elderly person who is going to die in the near future. Thats just the start of it. This doesn't account for the huge waiting lines to see a doctor, the months you have to live in pain just to get a simple sugury or even just a CAT scan/MRI. If its not life threatening (or if you are disabled, a premature baby, or elderly), then you can forget it.

In Holland babies born before 25 weeks arent given any treatment.

And if the US gets a universal healthcare system then those nice salaries you all have will soon dissapear. With the lowest price being the chosen route of treatment, the price cut will trickle down the chain and will affect your paycheck too.

[augigi]

No problem, just clarifying my position

[BSNtobe2009]

You are correct, I misread her post....(and I admit, I skimmed it).

[jjjoy]

I don't see that there are any surefire best ways to deal with health care. There is a spectrum of choices, with various pros and cons, and we disagree about where to draw the line.

In any system, there will be those who try to take advantage of the system. Some private sector companies try to take advantage. Some public servants try to take advantage. Some service recipients try to take advantage. We have many examples of both corporate inefficiency and of government inefficiency. No system is perfectly fair and perfectly efficient and perfectly innovative. We will have to live with imperfections in organizations and in individuals. We will continue to try to find a balance in society between individualism and collectivism (be it within family, community, country...).

Let's assume we all want a system that provides the best care to the most people - and not that people must be stupid or uncaring for holding certain views - then respectfully discuss our differences in perspective about HOW to provide the best care to the most people.