Healthcare is NOT a basic human right.

[Asystole RN]

If one were to read the Constitution one would realize that the Constitution does not grant anyone freedoms, liberties, or rights. The Constitution only protects freedoms, liberties, and rights from transgressions on part of the government. A right is something that is inherent to the individual, comes from that individual, and is maintained by the individual. You are born with such rights like the right to speak freely, the only thing that can be done to that right is to have it infringed. No one can grant a right to another, only limit or impede the exercise of that right.

Healthcare is a human invention that does not exist in the natural environment. Only through the work of others and through the taking of resources from one party and giving to another does healthcare exist. You cannot force someone to give effort and resources to another and call that a right. In the absence of human intervention the individual would live their lives and succumb to the natural forces which would act upon their bodies.

Do I think we should provide preventative care and basic primary care? Sure. Do I think that we can? Maybe. Do I think that healthcare is a basic human right? Absolutely not.

[toekneejo, ADN]

I just searched the mortality rates by country by going to the UN statistics and I do not see the mortality rates that you are describing. Asia and South/central America's rates for over all are lower But not Europe or Africa and sorry I don't recall Australia's. As for infant mortality the US is quite a bit lower than most. Please share your morality reference.

[cdsga]

Has anyone had to use COBRA? That's open to all through the gov't. Is it affordable? No. Does it offer a safety net? Yes, but like everything else it is not free, nor is it cheap. Supreme Court said the Affordable Care Act was constitutional. Agree or not, these appointed judges voted yes on it.

I personally agree that the middle class will pay for the lower class,and will be too tired to go see the doctor. So the middle gets squeezed. All these politicians say they want to build the middle class-I'm sure they do. If they don't have us, then it will be the Third World revisited. It's a shame because WWII had such a great time of growth of the middle class. Everyone wanted a piece of the pie they couldn't afford-so bail out. The vast majority will be the "have-nots" and be dependent on the gov't and the growing bureaucracy that will end up being the largest employer in the land.

We'll bankrupt ourselves and put down any innovation or creativity because it takes too much energy to fight "city hall". So complacency, laziness, dependency and idiocy will rule. Anyone with half a mind will be labeled as a trouble maker and weeded out or locked up. Think about the crazy guy who made the video that "supposedly" riled up the Middle East. They arrested him for probation violations-really? They're squashing his constitutional rights-just like they are for fulfilling our own life story-concerning health-obtaining or not obtaining insurance.

They have taken away the choice of the people, and now charge a tax (cloaked in the terminology of a penalty) if you don't want what the gov't is dishing out. Believe me it will be a single payor system in the next 15-20 years and we will look back on these days and wish we did things differently.

Do you think the gov't will actually collect on all the penalties? Will they continue to expand the IRS to handle the penalties? Will they build and fill prisons for those evaders unwilling to pay? Will we start having debtor's prisons? Interesting thought to me. That might be a good deal, maybe I'll get better medical attention in jail.

[emmyers, RN]

@toekneejo

I do not know what statistical rates you are referring to (whether say, occupational mortality or disease), I was referring to those gathered by the WHO (which I stated in my post), and I was also referring to those of developed nations... most central/south american and asian countries are not considered developed. The rate I pointed out specifically was infant mortality, and the US ranked at 40th the last I checked, which was below every developed nation. If you want to narrow your search, look up those that would be considered healthcare preventable.

[cdsga]

Who EVER wants to see people die tragic deaths due to lack of insurance? No one. But everyone is the master of their own destiny. Should I feel bad for someone who has cancer-doesn't return for treatments or follow up visits? Should I feel bad that choices made delay important treatment? No, that's their right to choose their own life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That pursuit of happiness may be at their own detriment.

The majority of our healthcare dollars are spent at end of life. Why is that? Is it looking for that one miraculous healing? Is it to help the survivors come to grips with the reality that they are going to lose their loved one? Seems like it could be many reasons.

Is there to be a cap on the amount of money spent on one person? Seems like some of our illustrated gov't medical programs do have a cap.

What if there's a person who has a chronic disease from an early age-no fault of their own, using thousands on healthcare benefits, and there's another who never uses the insurance they paid into? Isn't it a gamble? Should we be able to take the money not used and donate our unused portion to those in need? Would that be an option? Just like donating earned time off to a person who needs money to pay bills because they have used up their disability cap? I know I have not used my insurance at all this year, but I sure did pay alot for not using it. Maybe someone else could benefit from my premiums paid this year.

[uRNmyway, ASN, RN]

Back in 2005, I was working on an Oncology floor in an area hospital. One afternoon we admitted a 34 yr old mother of two elementary school aged children to our floor. Jennifer (not her real name) had been to a walk-in clinic earlier that day and the doctor there had called our Oncologist and sent Jennifer to the hospital.

Jennifer had been diagnosed with breast cancer in her 20's and had been treated at the time and the treatment worked. She had a strong family history of breast cancer, both her mother and aunt were survivors. When Jennifer was diagnosed, she and her husband had insurance through their jobs. Jennifer was supposed to go back to her Oncologist every 6 mos. or so after her treatment for follow up exams to make sure the cancer did not return. Jennifer's husband had graduated from college in the meantime and had a new job as a preacher for a small local church. They had no insurance after her cancer treatment and were not eligible for Medicaid. Because of Jennifer's medical history, they could not get any other insurance coverage. She did not go for the follow-ups.

Jennifer had gone to the walk in clinic that day because she had a cough that just wouldn't go away. She had avoided seeking any help before this because it was too expensive to pay out of pocket and she didn't want to take money for this away from her family's already tight budget. She knew they would never have been able to afford the expensive tests needed to monitor her. She put her family's needs first.

After Jennifer was admitted to our floor, she was sent for a multitude of scans. They showed that she was full of metastasis everywhere. Because of her age, it was decided to aggressively treat the cancer and she was sent home for outpatient chemo treatment. This was in May. In July, she was admitted back to our floor and we barely recognized her. She was swollen from head to toe and had lost all of her hair. She was weak, tired and in pain, everywhere. She had opportunistic infections of every kind. We hooked her up to a PCA pump and kept her comfortable. She lost consciousness and died on our floor a few days later.

Her young husband was devastated and now faced raising two young children alone. Those two children must grow up without their mother. I saw the fear on the faces of Jennifer's two sisters as they watched her suffer and die so quickly, surely fearful that this could happen to them, too.

The nurses on my floor cried over the loss of Jennifer for days. Some of the nurses kept in touch with her husband and I believe he remarried a few yrs. later.

I wish this story was a rare one, but it is not in this country. Because of the type of cancer she had, the same fate ultimately may have awaited Jennifer, but I believe she would have had more time with her children if she been covered by insurance and had been able to receive the appropriate follow-up care she needed.

Having access to care would have been great, I am sure. However, universal healthcare would not have necessarily have been the answer. I worked as an RN in Quebec. I have had several patients who ended up dying because they could not get an appointment quick enough to find out why they had this weird pain, persistent cough, unexplained weight loss, etc. Several months later, get hospitalized and find out they have cancer.

Some other poster commented on the "horror stories" people keep spreading regarding healthcare in Canada. They arent all propaganda. I saw it with my own eyes on several occasions.

On that note, people who are against the ACA are not necessarily against people getting assistance, or letting ill infants die (I find THAT part of the propaganda almost funny). I dont think the ACA is a good thing. However, I do think that the poor and children should get healthcare.

[37 °C]

The evidence you are using is based on other countries' successes and failures. We have a completely different culture and I do not believe for one minute that a universal health care system will work in this country.

Our current healthcare system is failing, and without reform, is on the road to disaster. Take a look at the ever-increasing portion of our GDP it consumes. The number of uninsured has been on the rise. Small companies and individuals have been getting priced out of the market. One employee making a claim can make a small company's overall premiums skyrocket. And forget about getting insurance if you had a pre-existng problem. It was simply unavailable at any price.

By the time people are in their 50's, what percentage has no excludable conditions? How about anyone else with chronic illnesses, cured cancer, and so on?

What in our culture says that they should suffer in silence? Is that good for any culture?

I agree with the OP, a universal primary care system may work quite well, but not the rest. May sound inhumane, but I also believe it is the reality. Our VA hospitals are less efficient that other hospital systems and so is Medicare and Medicaid.

That is completely false. Find some numbers and prove me wrong. If you do research, you will find that private insurance companies are no more efficient than Medicare, with the additional burden of marketing expenses, high executive salaries, and profit for shareholders. They have become no more efficient over time, and they refuse to standardize their billing practices. American hospitals need a lot of personnel just to deal with billing, since insurance companies each like to do things their own way.

Why has the relatively unregulated market failed for health insurance in the U.S.?

How Veterans' Hospitals Became the Best in Health Care (Time, 27 Aug. 2006)

I'm sorry, but you cannot come to conclusions about something as complex as healthcare based on gut feeling and preconceived notions of "how it is."

We all know that the government run systems do not pay nearly as much as the private insurance and many health care institutions in this country would be bankrupt if they had to solely depend on Medicare type reimbursement.

In fact, our local county hospital (with the only level 1 trauma center in the area) is going bankrupt because it has to cover the cost of care for those without insurance, and who cannot (or will not) pay. Medicare reimbursements can be adjusted, and unfortunately, reimbursement rates are at the moment a political football. Adjusting those rates will not blow up the system. In fact, there is a lot of room to raise them before Medicare drops in efficiency to that of private insurance companies.

After all, our own country cannot even keep up with the soldier's injuries in this country, how could it possibly provide us all with the healthcare we need.

Soldiers' injuries? You should look into the politics surrounding that, and who in Congress is voting which way on the matter. You'll see that those who oppose health care reform are the same ones who think the budget can be balanced on such things as the care of injured soldiers.

Apparently, their care is a type of socialism that you favor.

Where I live, the county hospital, the VA hospital, and a university hospital are adjacent to one another. Among them, your best bet for health care would be at the VA hospital. Throw in private, for-profit hospitals in the area, and it's still true.

In case there's any misunderstanding, the ACA, the healthcare reform we're actually getting, uses private companies to provide insurance. There is no public option. There will be subsidies for people who can't afford the cost of insurance on their own, and states will still administer their own Medicare programs. (I trust you're familiar with the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding the last item.)

If you don't think the government should help, then you're saying either that a lot of people, tens of millions and rising, should go without insurance. What do we do when an uninsured person needs critical care? Turn them away? Or treat them in the emergency room and make believe that the cost of their care has no effect, as we do now?

Is the pre-ACA status quo, where the cost of health care is spiraling as a percentage of GDP, as is the number of uninsured people, good enough? A lot of people who have health insurance provided by their employer think so (even as their contribution for coverage, co-pays, and deductibles go up and up), but they have no idea how close to the financial precipice they are if they lose their job. People tend to think that bad things will not happen to them. But bad things do happen at random.

[37 °C]

On that note, people who are against the ACA are not necessarily against people getting assistance, or letting ill infants die (I find THAT part of the propaganda almost funny). I dont think the ACA is a good thing. However, I do think that the poor and children should get healthcare.

What do you think happens to infants who have no access to health care? They just shake off illness?

You're a recent immigrant, so you have no idea of the U.S.'s history of healthcare. Programs such as CHIP (Medicaid for children) are recent programs. Before that, many children had no access to healthcare, other than through emergency rooms. You ought to travel to some of the poorer areas before forming such firm opinions and see how it really is. The grinding poverty you'll find here is not common in Canada.

And what should happen to adults who work one or two jobs, but get no health benefits? Should they just go die? Would you at least be willing to chip in for the funerals?

Guess what? Your employer's health insurance premiums are as high as they are in part to cover care of the uninsured. It comes out of your compensation. So does some of the taxes you pay. In the end, you pay more than you would in a place like Canada.

Before you compare wait times for procedures in Canada and the U.S., I suggest you familiarize yourself with our system. As a nurse, you have no way to know how long someone has waited for an MRI or another procedure. I also don't think you have a good handle on how health care is prioritized in Canada. Some other posters in this thread have addressed that, and more information is of course available, if you're interested.

The false dichotomy here, though, is that our choice is either our own broken system, or Canada's system. It's a false dilemma. It's pushed by people who oppose any kind of health care reform or regulation.

I invite you to travel to Western Europe and see how their systems work. I suggest you ask people if they'd trade their system for ours, which costs twice what theirs costs, is less accessible, and has worse outcomes. Then I invite you to poll Canadians and see how many would trade their system for ours. I've found very, very few who would.

Do you even have insurance? If not, who do you think would pay if you contracted a critical, costly illness?

[37 °C]

I just searched the mortality rates by country by going to the UN statistics and I do not see the mortality rates that you are describing. Asia and South/central America's rates for over all are lower But not Europe or Africa and sorry I don't recall Australia's. As for infant mortality the US is quite a bit lower than most. Please share your morality reference.

These countries have lower infant mortality rates than the U.S., from the next lowest to the lowest:

Faroe Islands

Northern Mariana Islands

New Caledonia

Hungary

Taiwan

Greece

French Polynesia

Canada

Cuba (Yes, Cuba)

New Zealand

San Marino

Wallis and Futana

Portugal

United Kingdom

Australia

(European Union)

Liechtenstein

Luxembourg

Belgium

Isle of Man

Austria

Denmark

Slovenia

South Korea

Israel (our close socialist ally)

Switzerland

Jersey

Ireland

Andorra

Netherlands

Czech Republic

Malta

Guernsey

Germany

Norway

Anguilla

Finland

France (the U.S.'s infant mortality rate is 1.8 times that of France)

Spain

Italy

Iceland

Macau

Hong Kong

Sweden

SIngapore

Bermuda

Japan

Monaco

Source: The CIA World Factbook

[Fiona59]

Jeweles26: you were happy to be educated in Quebec. A province that has the lowest education costs in the nation. Yet, you have the nerve to complain about the high taxes in Canada. You directly benefitted from those taxes.

When push came to shove, you took your heavily subsidized education and moved to the US to avoid paying taxes on your income. I think you may be the perfect American. Use the system for your own benefit.

Grinding poverty is present in Canada on many of our reservations but this is an entirely different conversation on fiscal mismanagement by Indian Affairs and band councils.

We can tell horror stories about any healthcare system. Where America seems to differ from much of the rest of the world is in the concept of working towards a greater good.

[joanna73, BSN, RN]

In response to a previous post that "socialized medicine will not work in this country, because we are a different culture..." I'm paraphrasing slightly, but the only reason why socialized medicine may not work for Americans is simply because too many Americans don't want it to work. While everyone is entitled to their opinions, many of the arguments against universal health care presented here are weak. In the end, universal health care benefits EVERYONE. Examine countries who have such a system, and you will realize this.

[realmaninuniform]

Lot's of good discussion on this thread with great points being made on both sides of the argument. With that said, I'd like to chime in my own two cents. First, I don't believe health care is a "right" in any sense of the term and certainly not a constitutional right. Right's are endowed by our creator, and for those of you atheists/agnostics, rights you are born with. You have a right to your own life, your own liberty, your own property etc. You do not have a right to services you don't pay for, other peoples property, or other peoples lives. This is my primary objection to the ACA. It violates numerous principles, including individual liberty and private property. You shouldn't be forced into buying something against your free will, period. Nor should you be forced to pay for something for someone else's benefit.

The whole idea behind the ACA is mind boggling, and defies basic economic law. If the aim is to make health care more affordable, this bill couldn't be more erroneous. Increasing the demand without increasing the supply is only going to increase the price. This isn't economics 101, it's economics for dummies. The US is 16 TRILLION dollars in debt, we can't even pay the bills we have now, including our current obligations to medicare and medicaid (which are huge problems). So how is it some think that we can now subsidize health care for the entire country? The answer is we can't, without greatly increasing taxes or the deficit and debt. Cutting medicare funding, to the group of people who need health care the most, is not going to do the trick, despite what Obama has said.

Do I think people should be denied health care and die in the streets? Absolutely not. Do I think this ever happens? Absolutely not. Under federal law, anyone who comes into a hospital that accepts federal funds (which is almost every single hospital in the country) can get care, whether they truly need it or not. Case in point, one night in the ED, I took care of a patient that presented with a severe constant headache. He had no insurance and no job, and made that known. The patient refused the course of treatment prescribed by the hospital. He stated that the medications and non-pharmalogical nursing interventions I had suggested, wouldn't work. When I asked him how he knew it would not work and why he felt that way. He said he had a brain tumor. I left his room to contact the attending. The attending sort of laughed it off and said if he doesn't want what's been prescribed, he's free to leave. Feeling that we had not done the patient justice, regardless of his economic situation, I dove into his chart. It turns out that this patient had been to the hospital just a few weeks prior c/o the same s&sx. On that visit we performed a full intensive work-up. He had xrays, ct scans, blood work, and a UA. All unremarkable and for which we never saw a dime for.

So, is the current system we have now perfect? By no means. There certainly needs to be reforms, I just don't feel that the ACA is going to change things for the better. The majority of people who cannot "afford" health care now, already receive free care through medicaid, strange though, that they can afford iPhones, manicured nails, hair, nice vehicles, nice clothes, etc. The ACA is really not going to effect them in any way. Now as for the working poor, those who cannot afford health insurance, but are not poor enough to qualify for medicaid, they are going to be the real sufferers of this bill. Now they will be fined for not having coverage. The others who will suffer include myself. I am young, single, in good health, and decline my employers health insurance for simple economic reasons. I could pay $180 a month, over $2k a year for a major medical plan that doesn't cover anything until I hit $2,500 out of pocket or I could pay $50 cash for an office visit to my physician or $0 for a phone call with dx and tx recommendation :-) I choose to manage the risk myself. In the even of a catastrophic event, I rely on other forms of insurance (automobile, homeowners), to cover my losses. If this does not cover it, I am well aware that tx may bankrupt me, but that is a risk I am willing to take.

None the less, I digress. I believe the late, great, Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman was correct in his essay on public policy in health care. "Since the advent of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, the cost of health care has risen dramatically. Adjusted for inflation, hospital cost is well over 26 times higher now, than it was before Medicare and Medicaid. The number of hospital beds per populace has been cut in half, yet the number of hospital personnel is 7 times higher. The quality of care and innovation has decreased. Clearly the 7 times as many staff per bed are not attending to patients, but filling in forms to satisfy government requirements." I have to laugh at people such as 37 degrees or whatever his/her username is that falsely believe that the "free market" is to blame for the problems in health care. I'm not going to sit here and claim that profit margins have nothing to do with cost, but I'm not going to say that there's been a "free market" in health care in the last 47 years either. If history and fact has shown anything in the last 100 years in this country, it is that the government is the problem, rather than the solution to the multitude of problems we face, no matter how well intentioned their solutions may be. I'll keep my guns, money, freedom, and health. You can have the change!

[37 °C]

First, I don't believe health care is a "right" in any sense of the term and certainly not a constitutional right. Right's are endowed by our creator, and for those of you atheists/agnostics, rights you are born with. You have a right to your own life, your own liberty, your own property etc.

You might enjoy reviewing John Locke's and Thomas Hobbes's writings, but here, you're playing a rhetorical game. If you're arrested, do you have the right to a speedy trial? the Sixth Amendment begins: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...." Is it a lie?

Societies decide what rights people have. Do you have an intrinsic right to take you neighbor's property? Why would or wouldn't you? (See Hobbes) Our culture says that you do not. You can argue whether you do on a philosophy forum.

You do not have a right to services you don't pay for, other peoples property, or other peoples lives.

That is absurd, unless you're continuing with your rhetorical game. If you're driving through a city in a neighboring state, you don't have the right to call the local fire department if your car catches fire, and expect a fire crew to arrive?

This is my primary objection to the ACA. It violates numerous principles, including individual liberty and private property. You shouldn't be forced into buying something against your free will, period. Nor should you be forced to pay for something for someone else's benefit.

If that's the case, then your objection rests on a very shaky foundation. You might as well say that the ACA will will cause earthquakes. You may not like it, but the Supreme Court has ruled on the matter of the mandate. It's settled. It's how healthcare has worked in Massachusetts for the past six years. Would you care to look into the results, and move from the hypothetical to the actual? Nearly everyone is covered, including almost every child. How many people do you think are paying a penalty?

The whole idea behind the ACA is mind boggling, and defies basic economic law. If the aim is to make health care more affordable, this bill couldn't be more erroneous. Increasing the demand without increasing the supply is only going to increase the price. This isn't economics 101, it's economics for dummies.

Once again you make that claim, but I see no concrete argument. You are arguing ideologial economic principles that you mistake as truth. Do you have numbers?

The US is 16 TRILLION dollars in debt, we can't even pay the bills we have now, including our current obligations to medicare and medicaid (which are huge problems).

We can't pay? Baloney. Certain elements in Congress choose not to, for political reasons.

Go see what percentage our GDP our current healthcare system consumes. Notice that that percentage keeps increasing.

TSo how is it some think that we can now subsidize health care for the entire country? The answer is we can't, without greatly increasing taxes or the deficit and debt.

We can't? But we do. You see some of those people in your emergency room, sometimes coming in with a collapsed lung (and no insurance), other times coming in with the flu and a runny nose (and no insurance). How much do you think that costs? How much do you think it costs, for instance, for an uninsured person to let his blood glucose go out of control for years because of lack of routine care, and then come into your emergency room with an MI, and in need of a foot amputation?

You don't have to believe me. First check the CBO numbers. Then see the experiences of other countries. I'll say it for the sixth time: every industrialized country has universal healthcare, and none of them pay (per capita) what we do. Typically they pay half, and have greater access (obviously) and better outcomes than we do. Look into the infant mortality rate list I posted above.

It's ironic that a lot of the same people who militantly oppose abortion also oppose providing health care for children. It boggles the mind.

Cutting medicare funding, to the group of people who need health care the most, is not going to do the trick, despite what Obama has said.

This is nonsense. Are you talking about cutting the subsidy for Medicare Advantage, which is the extra money that has to be paid to cover the cost of private insurance plans? They cost more than standard Medicare does.

Rather than propagating foolishness, read about it here (Washington Post).

Do I think people should be denied health care and die in the streets? Absolutely not.

Didn't you just say we don't have enough money to cover everyone? Please make up your mind.

Do I think this ever happens? Absolutely not.

Guess why?

Under federal law, anyone who comes into a hospital that accepts federal funds (which is almost every single hospital in the country) can get care, whether they truly need it or not.

By federal law. Exactly. I'll just skim over your snarky "whether they truly need it or not" comment. Your anecdote is pointless. You can come up with an example to "prove" any point.

That federal law hasn't been on the books that long. Guess what happened before that law was passed? People died in the streets. People would be brought to emergency rooms, critically ill, and would be turned away.

You said that wasn't okay. But then you posted an anecdote about a bad patient, to make what point? Please make up your mind.

He had xrays, ct scans, blood work, and a UA. All unremarkable and for which we never saw a dime for.

Do you think the money to pay for that came from the sky? It came mainly from the prices your hospital charge for those with insurance, and those who pay out-of-pocket. Guess what would have happened if that guy had insurance?

Your hospital would have been paid.

Instead, I paid for it through higher health insurance premiums. You will pay for it too if you get sick because you can't afford the inflated prices hospitals charge. Or I will pay for it, because you will run out of money, but you won't get kicked to the street when you do.

You will be a burden on me, realmaninuniform.

So, is the current system we have now perfect? By no means.

Considering the cost, an ever increasing percentage of our GDP; the access; and the outcomes; clearly that's true.

There certainly needs to be reforms, I just don't feel that the ACA is going to change things for the better.

"Something must be done!"

Oh, really? Would you care to enumerate? I've yet to see a single constructive idea.

What would you eliminate from the ACA? Insurance exchanges? Lifetime cap elimination? Pre-existing condition elimination? Electronic health records? Inclusion of children over 18 on their parent's plan?

WHAT would you do?

I'm pretty sure you haven't sat down and read the ACA, but its greatest accomplishment was the creation of the infrastructure to implement and administer a program like major healthcare reform.

As was done with the Massachusetts law, the federal law can be revised and improved. So far I've heard a total of zero constructive suggestions from you.

The majority of people who cannot "afford" health care now, already receive free care through medicaid, strange though, that they can afford iPhones, manicured nails, hair, nice vehicles, nice clothes, etc.

That was a very bigoted statement. Clearly you think that people who need any kind of public assistance are lazy fraudmeisters, well beneath you.

Do you have a count for those bogeymen? Or is it something you heard about on a radio show or cable channel?

The ACA is really not going to effect them in any way.

It's not going to cause them?

I suggest you look into the entirety of health care reform, and see what changes will be made by states (the recent Supreme Court decision on the matter notwithstanding) before you comment on the matter.

Now as for the working poor, those who cannot afford health insurance, but are not poor enough to qualify for medicaid, they are going to be the real sufferers of this bill. Now they will be fined for not having coverage.

Baloney. The same mandate is part of Massachusetts insurance reform, and it is simply false. Look into it.

You conveniently failed to mention the subsidies that kick in for those with lower incomes.

The others who will suffer include myself. I am young, single, in good health, and decline my employers health insurance for simple economic reasons. I could pay $180 a month, over $2k a year for a major medical plan that doesn't cover anything until I hit $2,500 out of pocket or I could pay $50 cash for an office visit to my physician or $0 for a phone call with dx and tx recommendation :-) I choose to manage the risk myself. In the even of a catastrophic event, I rely on other forms of insurance (automobile, homeowners), to cover my losses. If this does not cover it, I am well aware that tx may bankrupt me, but that is a risk I am willing to take.

You do not take the risk yourself, unless you sign a binding form (which would be illegal, since there are certain rights you cannot sign away) that states that, as soon as you run out of money, they can lay you out on the sidewalk. You think you're invincible? A lot of young people have serious accidents that well exceed their other coverage (such as auto insurance), even if it applies. If you had a million dollars in liquid assets, perhaps you should get a pass. Frankly, I don't want to pay for your surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation because you decided to save some money and go without insurance. That is rather selfish.

Are you saying that private insurance companies want to rip you off? Don't worry — they will be at the center of the somewhat reformed healthcare system. There will be no public option for insurance. No socialism. You should really like that part, since you're under the illusion that they are so efficient.

There is no need to wade further into your pointless exegesis on Milton Friedman economics.

I have to laugh at people such as 37 degrees or whatever his/her username is that falsely believe that the "free market" is to blame for the problems in health care.

Don't put words in my mouth. The unregulated market has widely been shown to be a disaster. Do I need to list examples? That doesn't mean that the free market is evil.

Our healthcare system is more free market that that of the other industrialized nations. You do realize that the U.S. isn't the only nation it the world with a healthcare system, don't you?

And yet, all the other countries pay a lot less, or way less, per capita, then we do. They cover all their citizens. Their patients have, on the average, better outcomes.

It's enough to make Ayn Rand's head explode.

I'm not going to sit here and claim that profit margins have nothing to do with cost, but I'm not going to say that there's been a "free market" in health care in the last 47 years either.

Care to elaborate? That phrase gets thrown around so often that it almost sounds true. Stalin was right about a lie, repeated often, wasn't he?

Would you care to detail how regulations are causing our system's obscene inefficiency? Tell me specifically how it makes insurance companies inefficient, if you can.

If history has shown anything, it is that, in healthcare, if there is an unregulated profit motive, the patient will get the short end of the stick. Each time you get a procedure denied, whether it's needed or not, it's money in the pockets of the insurance company shareholders.

Is it all a big abstraction to you?

There were a lot of posts in this thread from people who were viscerally angry about healthcare reform. The folks who posted them did not have much understanding of the law, the current system, or systems in other countries. They think we're fine because the increasing numbers of uninsured can go to an emergency room for routine care, or for critical care after having a lengthy untreated chronic illness. They think that the U.S. is somehow culturally defective, and cannot provide what every other industrialized country has provided to their citizens (at half the cost per capita). Your post reflects some of that. But yours is even more disingenuous, as if you're sharing lots of knowledge gained from a genuine study of healthcare, when it's really just a lengthy post on quasi-libertarian economic ideology.

I await your suggestions for how healthcare reform should be carried out.

I have to laugh at people such as 37 degrees or whatever his/her username...

Laugh away. Whatever floats your boat. As a healthcare provider, I trust you understand the significance of 37 degrees celsius. Laugh away, but defend your opinions. All I see from you is a pile of economic ideology and bigotry.

You can start by explaining why a VA Hospital likely provides better care than your hospital does:

How Veterans' Hospitals Became the Best in Healthcare