[HM2Viking]

Except that the OECD countries are countries such as France, Norway, the UK etc.....

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/23/34970246.pdf

Resources in the health sector (human, physical)

Despite the relatively high level of health expenditure in the

United States, there are fewer physicians per capita than in most other OECD countries. In 2002, the United States had 2.3 practising physicians per 1000 population, below the OECD average of 2.9. There were 7.9 nurses per 1 000 population in the United States in 2002, which is slightly lower than the average of 8.2 across OECD countries.

...
Most OECD countries have enjoyed large gains in life expectancy over the past 40 years. In the United States, life expectancy at birth increased by 7.3 years between 1960 and 2002, which is less than the increase of 14 years in life expectancy in Japan, or of 8.4 years in Canada. In 2002/3, life expectancy in the United States stood at 77.2 years, below the OECD average of 77.8 years. Japan, Iceland, Spain, Switzerland and Australia were among the top 5 countries registering the highest life expectancy among OECD countries.

Infant mortality rates in the United States have fallen greatly over the past few decades, but not as much as in most other OECD countries. It stood at 7 deaths per 1 000 live births in 2002, above the OECD average of 6.1.1 Among OECD countries, infant mortality is the lowest in Japan and in the Nordic countries (Iceland, Sweden, Finland and Norway), all below 3.5 deaths per 1 000 live births.

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

As the LA Times article I linked points out, yes, we ARE paying the costs. Currently, the average costs hospitals write off for uninsured is about 3%. A huge amount of money, to be sure. However, it is a problem to be managed and it is NOT 'breaking the system'. Nor, do advocates of government restricted healthcare suggest such, because, in order to do so, you'd have to translate the cost of this 'free rider' problem to the gov't. And of course, the gov't, if we'd just cede over our rights to it, can create utopia on Earth.

Everybody puts in an equal amount and everybody gets back an equal amount. Except. Neither would be the case.

~faith,
Timothy.

Way too much money is being spent on Administration costs by the "efficient" private sector health insurance companies.....

[Tweety]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

As the LA Times article I linked points out, yes, we ARE paying the costs. Currently, the average costs hospitals write off for uninsured is about 3%. A huge amount of money, to be sure. However, it is a problem to be managed and it is NOT 'breaking the system'. Nor, do advocates of government restricted healthcare suggest such, because, in order to do so, you'd have to translate the cost of this 'free rider' problem to the gov't. And of course, the gov't, if we'd just cede over our rights to it, can create utopia on Earth.

Everybody puts in an equal amount and everybody gets back an equal amount. Except. Neither would be the case.

~faith,
Timothy.

There are plenty of hospitals, where it's greater than 3%. Plus there are public hospitals, city run and county run that provide indigent care greater than 3%. So the insurance premiums and the taxes you pay are providing care, that yes isn't breaking the bank I agree.

We practically have a social welfare health care system anyway, why not take it to the next level.

I know too our health care system does work well enough for the average person not to walk around saying "gee this crises needs to be addressed". They have other concerns, because in traumatic events they are getting the health care they need. Workers are able to afford the high premiums, a percentage of which goes to the indigents. I have my premiums dedeucted from my paycheck without much though to the "crisis".

Neither system is perfect. For every story in Finland, Germany, or Canada of nightmarish care, there's a story here as well.

[NRSKarenRN]

From Healthleadersmedia.com:

New urgency in debating healthcare
Since Hillary Rodham Clinton’s effort to overhaul the nation’s medical system was rejected in 1994, most big employers have stayed out of the debate on healthcare reform. But with medical costs ballooning, top executives of large companies are starting to speak up again--and many are calling for a national approach to fixing healthcare.
New York Times, Apr. 6, 2007



Large corporations will have a BIG say in how healthcare is shapped in the future, especially those associated with Leap Frog group.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by Tweety

There are plenty of hospitals, where it's greater than 3%. Plus there are public hospitals, city run and county run that provide indigent care greater than 3%. So the insurance premiums and the taxes you pay are providing care, that yes isn't breaking the bank I agree.

We practically have a social welfare health care system anyway, why not take it to the next level.

I know too our health care system does work well enough for the average person not to walk around saying "gee this crises needs to be addressed". They have other concerns, because in traumatic events they are getting the health care they need. Workers are able to afford the high premiums, a percentage of which goes to the indigents. I have my premiums dedeucted from my paycheck without much though to the "crisis".

Neither system is perfect. For every story in Finland, Germany, or Canada of nightmarish care, there's a story here as well.

There are two issues here, Tweety.

1. Creating a social health system safety net.

2. Creating a gov't restricted healthcare system in order to use it as a proxy to promote socialism.

The first is interested in ensuring access to most or all citizens.

The second is interested in using healthcare as a means to ensure equality of outcome.

The first doesn't require any effectual change in the way 85% of Citizens get coverage: instead, in is interested in helping the 15% in the gap.

The second wants to change healthcare for everybody, bringing it to an equal, if dismal, level.

I'm not against, per se, creating a safety net. I'm AGAINST the concept that I have to be bled dry, in terms of taxation AND access to my own care, to bring that about.

See, the first is about helping people.

The second, that's about political ideology.

Design a system that helps the 15% without impacting the care of the 85%, and you'll have no problems getting it passed. Americans are generous, but not to a fault.

The problem: "Progressives" will NOT give up on socialism for healthcare, even if it means being able to pass a program that would ensure access by all. The ISSUE is socialism. Healthcare is just the proxy.

~faith,
Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by NRSKarenRN

From Healthleadersmedia.com:

New urgency in debating healthcare

Large corporations will have a BIG say in how healthcare is shapped in the future, especially those associated with Leap Frog group.

I'm as equally opposed to neo-mercantilism as I am to socialism. Both harm average Americans. So, these companies want to create a competitive advantage for themselves at my expense. Typical. In the interests of the consumer, let's stick it to the consumer.

I dislike companies that want to use gov't stormtroopers to allow them to be less competitive in the marketplace. THAT is how CEOs can earn 10 million dollars a year: they have a buffer between the management and their consumers - and that buffer is gov't.

I also directly dislike gov't stormtroopers that promise me utopia, but only at the point of a gun. Anybody that spends just a few seconds on the dichotomy of utopia, but only by gov't coercion, will see that something just doesn't add up. . . If it's so great, why does it have to be created by force?

~faith,
Timothy.

[ingelein]

Health Care Costs Hitting Middle Class

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...704050364/1040

"Premiums are absorbing a larger and larger portion of family budgets and the same is true for business. As a result, there are a lot of businesses that can't sustain health care coverage. More and more businesses are passing on costs to their workers."

Universal health care is not an attempt to turn this country toward socialism, our country can and will come up with a plan that most likely will combine single payer system with some sort of employer, private insurance plan.All this panic over "socialism" is in my opinion, an attempt by a ideological movement to hamper any positive change in our society, it looks like the followers of this ideology have bought this hook line and sinker, even if it cuts off their own nose to spite their face. SO FOOLISH.I am NOT trying to disparage ANY person here on this forum, but it must be said, that extremism in any form is not only foolish, but dangerous.

[ingelein]

Why we must be aware of a movement to stop efforts at progress in our society, which includes positive reforms of health care, education, living wages, social security, medicare, medicaid, etc, etc.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=3147

"For over 25 years, People For the American Way Foundation has countered the Right Wing's efforts to roll back or stop social justice PROGRESS and reshape government and society to it's liking."

I am not saying that all of these organizations listed are extremists, BUT some are, it behooves us as Americans to be aware of what is afoot in this country of ours and how much potential harm it may bring to our society.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by ingelein

All this panic over "socialism" is in my opinion, an attempt by a ideological movement to hamper any positive change in our society

Socialism will not be a positive change in our society. It has never been a positive change, for any society.

It is not compassionate. It denies the very opportunities to move up that its proponents so stridently advocate. It's very means completely undoes its ends.

While the ends rarely justify the means in any case, gov't restricted healthcare can't even reasonably bring about the ends. It amounts to selling both the means and the ends short.

~faith,
Timothy.

[pickledpepperRN]

[quote=ingelein;2145271]Health Care Costs Hitting Middle Class

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...704050364/1040

...Universal health care is not an attempt to turn this country toward socialism...[/QUOTE]

Is someone being disingenuous by ignoring this?
Tired after a night shift?
Listening to alarmists on the radio?
Where does the fear come from?

I think we need to find a balance. I believe the people of America can create an American healthcare system.