I'm for Socialized Medicine and elimination of private insurance and HMOs.

[FireStarterRN]

I've come to realize that the newer buzzword seems to be "Universal Coverage" instead of "Socialized Medicine". The plans that I read about seem to want to construct a government mandated system that incorporates all the HMOs and insurance companies.

I think this is wrong. One of the problems with our system is that it's got too many fingers in the pie. I'm in favor of a single payer, British style system or else keeping the present free for all we have now. I think the Democrats, who are the most likely to be in favor of a big government program like this, are too afraid to take on the powerful lobbies of HMOs and Insurance companies.

If we come up with a hybrid system like is being proposed, we are in for even more regulatory confusion and mess than we are even seeing now.

I think a single payer, government run socialized system is the best option. I also think that there must be strict tort reform that goes along with it to protect healthcare providers from frivilous lawsuits.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

I think that the EU spending data knocks holes in the idea that UHC is more expensove and less efficient.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

the fair share in a dismal outcome argument is not supported by who life expectany data.

australia

life expectancy at birth (years) males ? 79.0 (2005) +4

life expectancy at birth (years) females ? 84.0 (2005) +4

canada

life expectancy at birth (years) males ? 78.0 (2005) +3

life expectancy at birth (years) females ? 83.0 (2005) +3

france

life expectancy at birth (years) males ? 77.0 (2005) +2

life expectancy at birth (years) females ? 84.0 (2005) +4

germany

life expectancy at birth (years) males ? 76.0 (2005) +1

life expectancy at birth (years) females ? 82.0 (2005) +2

new zealand

life expectancy at birth (years) males ? 77.0 (2005) +2

life expectancy at birth (years) females ? 82.0 (2005) +2

united kingdom

life expectancy at birth (years) males ? 77.0 (2005) +2

life expectancy at birth (years) females ? 81.0 (2005) +1

united states of america

life expectancy at birth (years) males ? 75.0 (2005)

life expectancy at birth (years) females ? 80.0 (2005)

http://www.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_select_process.cfm

the dismal outcomes are our health statistics. (and yes there are third world countries with worse outcomes but do we as a country want to race for the top or race for the bottom. currently we are racing for the bottom.)

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

The federal monster had nothing to do with what your hospital charged you.

Sure it does. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT empowered my employer to provide insurance and then set rules that made that insurance SO prohibitively expensive that I must purchase it through my employer.

This was done on purpose to make me an abstract in my own care. The government championed the third party payer system in the wake of WWII.

The NEW solution you propose is only the government shifting chairs on the Titanic. But. It was THEIR boat ride, from the start.

What we need isn't a better engine on the Titanic. We we need are life boats.

~faith,

Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

the fair share in a dismal outcome argument is not supported by who life expectany data.

nothing is supported by this who data, because it's self-reported data and not empirically validated.

besides, life expectancy is not at issue. americans also freely enjoy a very unhealthy lifestyle. are you going to restrict that, as well? mandatory physical therapy? close down all the fast food joints? how much choice would you allow uncle daddy to take away, in our own best interests?

for the record, americans have much more of each of the following, leading to a lower life expectancy: more aggressive treatment of neonates, higher incidence of murder, higher incidence of drunk driving related deaths. none of these are reflective of our current system, except maybe, that we place a higher than average value on 24-26 weekers.

~faith,

timothy.

[Jolie, BSN]

Think of snowbirds. A snowbird is a retiree who lives in the upper Midwest during spring, summer, fall and then lives down South during the Winter. How could a state rationally manage that type of funding and expenditure.

So only federal control of healthcare would allow Gram and Gramps to get their care when they're in Florida for the winter?

Baloney!

Virtually every health plan in existence has some provision for participants to receive care when out of their "home" service area, including private insurers like BC/BS, Aetna, Cigna, Prudential, Mutual of Omaha, etc. How do I know? I move and travel a lot, have changed insurance plans many times, and have utilized out-of-area care with all of these plans.

If even the big, bad insurers can manage this, I'm certain that you can place faith in the government to do the same.