A majority of Americans would tolerate higher taxes to help pay for universal health

Just a thought for those who don't want government involved in their health care ,whose advice do you trust on any other matter .That which you receive from a disinterested party or that which you receive from somebody with a vested interest .

In health care as provided through a single payer , the amount available for healthcare is estsblished ,the physicians order treatment which is provided within the limits of the funding.

In the USA healthcare funding for the insurered is set by the insurer , the physician orders treatment ,then the Insurer ( who has a vested interest ) decides if the care is OK or denied.

I for one would prefer a single payer system for that reason alone.

Insurance and its profitability is based upon spreading risk , you can't spread risk through a larger group than a single provider would have.The larger the group the greater the economies in scale are.

Other advantages to Health care as I have experienced it in Europe are :

your employer is not your healthcare provider ,so they do not have to bear those cost ,can be more profitable , so your job is more secure.

When you change jobs / take a prolonged leave eg. during pregnancy / after child is born, healthcare provision is uninterrupted ,no 3 month waiting period, or period in which you have to pay much higher costs.

When you get sick and need your healthcare ,you do not face the risk of losing your insurance ,then everything you own ,because you lose your coverage and are now uninsurable.

OK as to rationing of care ,that is a description that can be applied to both the European healthcare and USA Healthcare system ( managed care is the US euphemism for rationing).

NICURN makes very good point about 'spreading the risk.' That is a big reason our current system isn't working is people don't stay in jobs like they used to so there are alot of gaps in coverage.....the 'risk pools' aren't working as they should.

For example, my 22 y.o. BIL had very good health insurance with a job - until he quit. He should have gotten COBRA, but being young with no health problems he didn't.

Only a couple weeks later, he was visiting friends in a small town in wyoming on July 4th and they were lighting off fireworks (and drinking) as he was lighting one he burned his hand- 2nd degree.

He went to the ER via ambulance and this hospital couldn't treat burns, so he was flown by Lifeflight to a larger hospital, where he was treated.

i know that the air ambulance alone cost over $8000....let alone the hospital stays. He isn't the most reputable character anyway and hasn't paid any of these bills, not that he can working in low wage jobs....so the costs are passed on to those who 'can' pay. I suspect he quit a job b/c a hosp. garnished wages, as well - and he doesn't have assets that they can go after.

should he not have gotten treatment b/c he didn't have insurance? I go back and forth on this one. who is to decide?


Another example.....myself. I was about to quit a job when i found out I was pregnant. I stayed with the job just to get health insurance. I quit only a couple months after I had the baby and after making a $13,000 claim to this companies health insurance. The remaining employees are the ones who have to absorb this cost in the way of higher premiums - and i know they did raise the premiums quite alot the next year. Is that fair? but that is just the way the system is working at present.

I have wondered how a government run health care system would affect salaries. If hospitals and all are still private, and take care of their own administrative policies and procedures, I foresee either cuts in healthcare workers' salaries or a long, long time before a raise comes through.

In this day and age, we are seeing extreme greed on the part of our CEO's and Presidents of many companies and this seems to run rampant in healthcare. I doubt very much that they will adjust their salaries and benefits lower to help the hired help (i.e., registered nurses, radiologists, respiratory therapists, etc.).

And, if a healthcare (or any business, for that matter) business is required to contribute to the universal health care as it has to for medicare and social security, this country is in for financial ruin and high unemployment.

How about a windfall profits tax?

What is a windfall profit, exactly? More to the point, how would such an animal be any of the government's business?

It's time for a fair, flat tax that doesn't involve revealing to the government how much you make. It's nunya.

www.fairtax.org

~faith,
Timothy.

A flat tax, I agree with that. I also agree with the 'social justice' post. The disparities in healthcare really bother me. Our politicians and policy-makers seem to have no common sense sometimes. I had a patient recently, elderly and generally healthy fellow on SS and Medicare. He also happens to be pretty wealthy. He told me, "keep working hard and paying those taxes sweetheart so I can keep on golfing." I felt very insulted and it got me thinking...Here we are paying taxes to support his SS and healthcare via Medicare, while he truly has no need for the assistance. Meanwhile, some uninsured man, woman, or child in this country needs cancer treatment, a transplant, etc, and we (as a society) turn our backs on them. Where is the common sense in that? We will pay for preventative care on an 80 or 90 year old, but not a 3 year old? Before anyone jumps on me that the elderly have paid SS and Medicare taxes, so are now entitled to reap the benefits, I say many (if not most) are drawing out much, much more than they ever contributed. That's one of the reasons why the system is failing and why it is now an entitlement program. We need healtcare coverage for all citizens, although I agree I don't trust the people in Washington to provide a sane, sound system. That's why we need to get good, smart people elected, and not the same old, same old. We need to get universal healthcare and clean up politics by voting for the best and brightest.

We should means-test SS and Medicare. It should be an insurance program. I only collect on insurance when I NEED it. Just because I pay my car insurance every month doesn't mean I'm ENTITLED to money. If you are rich, congrats on living the American dream - reapply for SS and Medicare if you need it.

I'm afraid that the ONLY way to get a sane healthcare system has nothing to do with electing the 'right' people in Washington, as if anybody we could elect could keep from being influenced by the money that floats around. No. You can't depend on an elected class to have YOUR best interest at heart. They are bought and paid for by the highest bidder and that ain't you. The only way to get a sane and sound healthcare system is to get Washington OUT OF THE PROCESS.

The mess in healthcare TODAY is the result of government interference with the provision of your care. As a result of Washington, YOU don't directly pay for your care and so, you don't care what it costs. A doctor's visit is 200 bucks? Who cares, your co-pay is only 25. MY current prescription drug costs 289.39 for a 3 month supply. Why should I care, as I only paid 60 (20 bucks a month).

Single payor system would be disaster greater than Third party payor has been. The dirty little secret: both the current disaster of a payment scheme and the proposed disaster of a payment scheme are brought to you, courtesy of government. Government schemes have been the PROBLEM with healthcare. How on earth do you expect more of the same to be the solution?

What we NEED is Federal legislators that understand what an enumerated power is. . . Unfortunately, to most of our citizens, the Constitution is just some vague principle and not a check against the power of government that it was intended to be.

~faith,
Timothy.

Umm...those who pay the "greater burden" of the taxes are not doing so due to some altruistic motivation, that's why it's called "taxes." How exactly does that equate to unselfishness?

As for those who continually reap those taxes without contributing...who exactly is this? And how does that apply to this thread?

Zashaglaka,

Is there any single payer system you could ever see any merit in? For example, what do you think of Germany's?

It really is only a matter of time before we have a single payer system of some sort. We are the only Western nation in the entire world who doesn't have some form of national care.

I take issue with your claim that the USA has the best health care in the world, considering...

Out of all the developed nations...we have the highest:
-Infant Mortality Rate
-Death rate of 1-to-4 year olds
-Death rate of 15-to-24 year olds

On the WHOs rankings of best health systems in the world...we are...37. That number is due largely to the fact that we don't have universal coverage, but that in and of itself is really an issue anyhow. What good is the best health care in the world if it only applies to the rich segment of the population?

Anyhow, is there any system in the world that you could see working here?