Universal HealthCare - Why? - The Pros & Cons

Universal HealthCare - Why? - The Pros & Cons

Universal HealthCare - UHC - is health care coverage for all eligible residents of a political region and often covers medical, dental and mental health care. These programs vary in their structure and funding mechanisms.

Why do we need it?
* Is one reason because costs have been driven out of the reach of the average citizen?

Is it economically & ethically sustainable?
* Is the funding for this Universal HealthCare going to be like trying to fill a Black Hole?
* Will it go the way of Social Security whereas there are more users than payers?
* Will medical services have to eventually be 'rationed' like in some countries causing death rather than curing the sick?

Experiences:
While most industrialized/advanced countries have UHC, with exception of the USA & Turkey, if you do have it what are your experiences pro & con? And are these experiences typical/universal throughout your system?

Are you perfectly happy with your system? If yes, why? If not, do you think it can be improved? How?

Have you become disillusioned with your system? Why?

Is your system ' FREE ', or do you have a co-pay/out-of-pocket/excess payment? If you pay, is it getting more expensive? Was it always this way?

We would like to discuss these issues with you, & hear your opinions whether you agree with UHC or you disagree with UHC.

Please state the Country you are from, or the Country you have had direct first hand experience in/with their system.

Please, try to keep the discussion civil, & show those with differing opinions than your own the basic respect due all.

Please take time to answer our poll, even if you have decided not to take part in the debate. Thanks

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Whatever you say. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion.
At least I will take a side on issues and don't take the "intellectual cop-out" approach by trying to pander to everyone by saying "Now, now, both sides are guilty."
In some cases that may well be true, but in a good many this is simply not the case.

(From your "wacky type" friend! )

"I support the House bill whatever, dammit!" is not a wise "argument" to make.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by ersi:

A bone-marrow transplant is luxurious in U.S. in terms of money and luxurious in Canada in terms of time. Yes, it is also a matter of life and death for some. There are various reasons for people not to have various luxuries in life, but there are countries where some luxuries and privileges are guaranteed to all regardless of their wealth. U.S. is conspicuously not one of them.

"Guaranteed"? No. The guy in Canada was not guaranteed a bone-marrow transplant by the Canadian system ALONE, though his life depended on it.

Guaranteed, yes. Please pay attention to what I said:

"There are countries where some luxuries and privileges are guaranteed to all regardless of their wealth. U.S. is conspicuously not one of them."

I did not say *all* privileges are guaranteed. I said *some* privileges are guaranteed to *all* in some countries, except U.S. Don't try to paint your own country better by painting the rest of the world worse.

Originally posted by ersi:

I did not say *all* privileges are guaranteed. I said *some* privileges are guaranteed to *all* in some countries, except U.S.

Yeah, but there's no guarantee in having them. I guarantee you I will send you and everyone else on this forum a ton of gold when I get my unbelievably massive gold supply. I think everyone is entitled to a share of my gold. It's the right thing to do.

Originally posted by ersi:

Don't try to paint your own country better by painting the rest of the world worse.

I'm not. I try to be objective. Anyway, the sentiment can be reversed. Don't try to paint the US as an unqualified health-care hellhole by trying to paint other systems as (relatively) flawless. That is to deny the trade-off: access over availability.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by ersi:

I did not say *all* privileges are guaranteed. I said *some* privileges are guaranteed to *all* in some countries, except U.S.

Yeah, but there's no guarantee in having them. I guarantee you I will send you and everyone else on this forum a ton of gold when I get my unbelievably massive gold supply.

What kind of guarantees do you want? Guarantee (words on paper) by a government are the hardest known currency in banks. Of course, like anybody else, the government can revoke the guarantee or go bankrupt.

In case you pay for anything, there is no guarantee either. You might have all the money to invest in your health, but still you could get bullshitted by your doctor. If no security is secure enough for you, it's a terrible world you live in.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Anyway, the sentiment can be reversed. Don't try to paint the US as an unqualified health-care hellhole by trying to paint other systems as (relatively) flawless. That is to deny the trade-off: access over availability.

In U.S.: no money --> no access or availability. In Canada, some access and availability is guaranteed with or without money, whereas you can buy the rest elsewhere, if you really want to and have the money. In U.S., honestly, if you have no money, there can only be a pissed sentiment at Canadians. I suspect the same sentiment persists even if you do have money.

Originally posted by ersi:

In U.S.: no money --> no access or availability.

Wrong.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by ersi:

In U.S.: no money --> no access or availability.

Wrong.

Without any argument or comment of your own, it is impossible to guess what you mean here. I take it to mean that everything else I said is absolutely right and even this particular bit is relatively correct, as we have already been through enough discussion.

Originally posted by ersi:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by ersi:

In U.S.: no money --> no access or availability.

Wrong.

Without any argument or comment of your own, it is impossible to guess what you mean here. I take it to mean that everything else I said is absolutely right and even this particular bit is relatively correct, as we have already been through enough discussion.

No, your statement is simply wrong. It simply isn't true that no money = no access or availability here. Before making judgments of that sort about the health care system here, admittedly broken though it may be, it would be advisable to do a little research first. It's that "painting" thing again.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Before making judgments of that sort about the health care system here, admittedly broken though it may be, it would be advisable to do a little research first.

Research from you alone or are also other Americans allowed? And would you kindly do some research in UHC too.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

It's that "painting" thing again.

Exactly. I know well that black and white are not the only colours, but in the relative scale, an all-private for-profit system is the blackest there is, while other systems have some colour in them. And universal applicability. And cost efficiency for the largest majority.

Originally posted by ersi:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Before making judgments of that sort about the health care system here, admittedly broken though it may be, it would be advisable to do a little research first.

Research from you alone or are also other Americans allowed? And would you kindly do some research in UHC too.

I'm looking into various UHC systems. I've tried not to make any sweeping generalizations about them; I haven't lived in one and don't know enough about them. But basic common sense principles apply to whatever system. And sure, research from any Americans would be allowable, but of course looking at raw data is also helpful. People do have agendas from whatever angle. There are pros and cons to any system, as the thread title indicates.

Originally posted by ersi:

... in the relative scale, an all-private for-profit system is the blackest there is, while other systems have some colour in them.

The US hasn't had a completely all-private for-profit system in decades, if it ever did.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by ersi:

... in the relative scale, an all-private for-profit system is the blackest there is, while other systems have some colour in them.

The US hasn't had a completely all-private for-profit system in decades, if it ever did.

The U.S. system seems to be sharply non-universal though, this term I forgot to add.

No worry, it is moving in the same direction in other countries too. At least in mine (eastern rim of EU), as I grew up, there were no formalities to get to a doctor, everybody was under free universal healthcare, simply go there at the appointment time.

Now you have to have a steady job which "pays" for the insurance. If you don't have a job, there are certain free but extremely annoying formalities to be repeated each month which cover only emergencies and continuation of care you previously had. Otherwise you get a full bill.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

"I support the House bill whatever, dammit!" is not a wise "argument" to make.

2 things here:

1. I am not making that type of argument.

2. Whatever argument I choose to make is my business. I would ask you to keep the lectures to yourself please. One more thing, in other threads (namely the other HC thread) you have gotten a bit authoritarian. Don't tell me what or what not to say.

Originally posted by ersi:

Don't try to paint your own country better by painting the rest of the world worse.

This is a common tactic of the Republicans here ersi.
That and brandishing anyone that disagrees with the scarlet "S" for Socialist.
Obviously some people enjoy their fellow citizens suffering due to not being able to afford health insurance.
It's quite baffling to me.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Don't try to paint the US as an unqualified health-care hellhole by trying to paint other systems as (relatively) flawless.

Well, with the Medicare and Medicaid's budgets getting slashed each year, it is definitely going downhill, fast.
And sure, France and the UK's UHCS budgets may be be expanding with each passing year, but at least all of their citizens have access to health care. (And they are of course, not flawless)

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

"I support the House bill whatever, dammit!" is not a wise "argument" to make.

2 things here:

1. I am not making that type of argument.

2. Whatever argument I choose to make is my business. I would ask you to keep the lectures to yourself please. One more thing, in other threads (namely the other HC thread) you have gotten a bit authoritarian. Don't tell me what or what not to say.

Wouldn't dream of it. But I'm also free to point out that the old "O'Reilly/Beck/Limbaugh/ Republicans/ neo-Nazis/every bad person I can think of say the very same thing" argument is a load of crap.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Well, with the Medicare and Medicaid's budgets getting slashed each year, it is definitely going downhill, fast.
And sure, France and the UK's UHCS budgets may be be expanding with each passing year, but at least all of their citizens have access to health care. (And they are of course, not flawless)

Please (notice the "please" there) tell us what you think those flaws are. The NHS budget gets cut too on occasion, from what I hear.

In short, please (notice the non-authoritarian "please" there again) tell us what you like and don't like about the House bill. Specifically.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

But I'm also free to point out that the old "O'Reilly/Beck/Limbaugh/ Republicans/ neo-Nazis/every bad person I can think of say the very same thing" argument is a load of crap.

I never used the nazis in my argument.
And it is the type of propaganda they use. I've watched episodes of Beck and O'Reilly and that is exactly the type of propoganda they use.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Please (notice the "please" there)

Thanks.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

The NHS budget gets cut too on occasion, from what I hear.

But does it get cut every year?

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Please (notice the "please" there) tell us what you think those flaws are.

The one flaw of both system is the waits for some things. (As you have pointed out)
To rectify this, I would have a "rainy day" fund on hand to pay for some good old fashioned private treatment.
The point that I get so exasperated about though, is the fact that those opposed to an UHCS act like a country with UHC have no private insurance.
That is simply not true. They do and what they charge is not near as bloated as the insurance companies here.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

In short, please (notice the non-authoritarian "please" there again) tell us what you like and don't like about the House bill. Specifically.

I like the fact that there is a sincere attempt from Obama's administration to rectify a problem that has existed for close to 2 decades now. (As i liked Hillary's failed attempt in '93)
I like the fact that Obama has demanded the best form of health care for the American people. (And this is the singular issue I am in full agreement with him on)
I dislike the fact that, in my heart, I know this sincere attempt at reform is seemingly doomed to failure because yet again, the damn lobbyists will have won and a good many of my fellow citizens will continue to suffer in the richest nation in the world. Also,the fact that the number will continue to grow.
I dislike the fact that people want to bitch and complain about the costs of an UHCS, yet have no problem with throwing outrageous sums of money onto the flame of waste that the Afghanistan and Iraq Empirical Wars are.
I dislike the people who utterly reject the House bill without ever having taken a look at it. (Others who object to it are perfectly fine by me)
I especially dislike my fellow Mississippians who reject the House Bill due to it being attempted by Obama (racial undertones there are obvious, though most use the guise of Socialism as an excuse for not supporting it)
And lastly, I dislike the fact that we will probably continue to be the only modern, industrialised, rich nation that continues to let a large faction of it's population suffer.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

The one flaw of both system is the waits for some things. (As you have pointed out)
To rectify this, I would have a "rainy day" fund on hand to pay for some good old fashioned private treatment.
The point that I get so exasperated about though, is the fact that those opposed to an UHCS act like a country with UHC have no private insurance.
That is simply not true. They do and what they charge is not near as bloated as the insurance companies here.

What need would there be for private insurance? As Obama once said in the past, "everyody in, nobody out".

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

I dislike the fact that, in my heart, I know this sincere attempt at reform is seemingly doomed to failure because yet again, the damn lobbyists will have won and a good many of my fellow citizens will continue to suffer in the richest nation in the world. Also,the fact that the number will continue to grow.

It's not the damn lobbyists, since Obama's got some damn lobbyists and Big Pharma ad buys on his side as well. It's people who are afraid of falling out of the frying pan and into the fire. It's the suspicion that proponents of the Obama/Congressional health care reform proposals are not being honest. I could be wrong, but I think it's a pretty safe bet that Cigna and Blue Cross are not shipping in town hall protesters (with whose behavior overall at these things I don't agree). These don't look like professional protesters to me, for the most part.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

I dislike the fact that people want to bitch and complain about the costs of an UHCS, yet have no problem with throwing outrageous sums of money onto the flame of waste that the Afghanistan and Iraq Empirical Wars are.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

I dislike the people who utterly reject the House bill without ever having taken a look at it. (Others who object to it are perfectly fine by me)
I especially dislike my fellow Mississippians who reject the House Bill due to it being attempted by Obama (racial undertones there are obvious, though most use the guise of Socialism as an excuse for not supporting it)

Cheap and unnecessary injections of the racial element into this won't help. Rightly or wrongly, there were people who objected to health care reform under the quite-white Clintons as well.

I also dislike the people who cheerlead for the House bill who don't have the foggiest notion as to what's in it.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

What need would there be for private insurance? As Obama once said in the past, "everyody in, nobody out".

Even in UHC countries, some people have private insurance so they won't have to wait for some treatments that tend to have a wait for them.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Cheap and unnecessary injections of the racial element into this won't help.

I didn't expect it to, but you did ask what I dislike about the bill and I see this on an every other day basis.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Rightly or wrongly, there were people who objected to health care reform under the quite-white Clintons as well.

Yes, and those are older people who grew up under the Red Scare as well. As I've said, all any major news show has to do is mention that "S" word and these people will be against the bill without even looking at it. They put up a mental block that won't be removed anytime soon.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

What need would there be for private insurance? As Obama once said in the past, "everyody in, nobody out".

Even in UHC countries, some people have private insurance so they won't have to wait for some treatments that tend to have a wait for them.

Yet when people talk about "waiting" they're often accused of "fear-mongering". "Typical Republican tactics".

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Cheap and unnecessary injections of the racial element into this won't help.

I didn't expect it to, but you did ask what I dislike about the bill and I see this on an every other day basis.

"Seeing" and "I think I see" are different things.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Rightly or wrongly, there were people who objected to health care reform under the quite-white Clintons as well.

Yes, and those are older people who grew up under the Red Scare as well. As I've said, all any major news show has to do is mention that "S" word and these people will be against the bill without even looking at it. They put up a mental block that won't be removed anytime soon.

I don't think "socialism" is really mentioned any more than "far-right extremists". Often, they're used in conjunction: "Far-right extremists are using the word Socialism -- the new 'N-word' -- in an effort to mislead the public".

In America I don't think we need to have UHC, we just need a Cheaper Alternative that still offers quality,premium care w/o busting the wallet.
Keep the Insurance Companies as well, but foment other private industries that provide same or better premium care at a reasonable level.

Originally posted by samMD:

In America I don't think we need to have UHC, we just need a Cheaper Alternative that still offers quality,premium care w/o busting the wallet.

The thought that you can get "quality, premium care" without busting the wallet is one of the things that irks me.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Yet when people talk about "waiting" they're often accused of "fear-mongering". "Typical Republican tactics".

Well it is.
Republicans want to point out the one flaw a UHCS has in otherwise very fine systems to keep an improvement from ever happening.
It's a "my way or the highway" approach that they take.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

"Seeing" and "I think I see" are different things.

I know exactly what I see. So know you know what I see now, eh?
Unbelievable!

Originally posted by fanfaron:

I don't think "socialism" is really mentioned any more than "far-right extremists".

I wouldn't expect you to think otherwise.
That would actually require taking a side.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

I wouldn't expect you to think otherwise.
That would actually require taking a side.

When there are two clearly-defined sides containing people who know what the hell they're talking about, I'll be sure to pick one.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by samMD:

In America I don't think we need to have UHC, we just need a Cheaper Alternative that still offers quality,premium care w/o busting the wallet.

The thought that you can get "quality, premium care" without busting the wallet is one of the things that irks me.

its actually quite easy, the range of profit in America is way too high, to the point of extortion. In other countries things are a lot less expensive and they still make really good profit. Besides when there is a economic downturn the consumer doesn't stop or runaway from that business it remains with them b/c there prices are right? What do you think happened with Starbucks and Macdonalds? Starbucks charged and still charges $5 a coffee, and they were hit really hard. (yes I know they have $1 bottomless coffee, but its like 8 oz, how many times will you refill? Wont you get tired?), while Macdonald's charges a $1.50 for the same premium coffee,lus they have a full-fledged "cafe" side in mostly every Macdonalds now. they were hit but not as much b/c there prices were affordable by mostly everyone.

If the profit range can come down to a reasonable level, premium and quality care can be and will be possible. I can give you many examples of things that are overly priced and what they should be.

What do you think?

Originally posted by samMD:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by samMD:

In America I don't think we need to have UHC, we just need a Cheaper Alternative that still offers quality,premium care w/o busting the wallet.

The thought that you can get "quality, premium care" without busting the wallet is one of the things that irks me.

its actually quite easy, the range of profit in America is way too high, to the point of extortion. In other countries things are a lot less expensive and they still make really good profit. Besides when there is a economic downturn the consumer doesn't stop or runaway from that business it remains with them b/c there prices are right? What do you think happened with Starbucks and Macdonalds? Starbucks charged and still charges $5 a coffee, and they were hit really hard. (yes I know they have $1 bottomless coffee, but its like 8 oz, how many times will you refill? Wont you get tired?), while Macdonald's charges a $1.50 for the same premium coffee,lus they have a full-fledged "cafe" side in mostly every Macdonalds now. they were hit but not as much b/c there prices were affordable by mostly everyone.

If the profit range can come down to a reasonable level, premium and quality care can be and will be possible. I can give you many examples of things that are overly priced and what they should be.

What do you think?

"Profit range" or "profit margin"? And are you talking price controls? Do you know what happens then?

profit margin, its way too high reducing it some wont bring down our economic system . But keeping it high will

Personal Stories of Healthcare Systems Around the World

To the US Congress and the American people,
We urge you to ignore the myths about health systems in our country and others that are being pushed by US healthcare companies. Our national system of public healthcare works very well and enjoys extremely high levels of public support. We wish you a healthy and honest debate about healthcare in the US.
– Signed by 83,512 Avaaz members outside the U.S. since 12pm on Wednesday, August 19

Here are their stories:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/health_care_stories/

Originally posted by BernG:

Personal Stories of Healthcare Systems Around the World

To the US Congress and the American people,
We urge you to ignore the myths about health systems in our country and others that are being pushed by US healthcare companies. ...

Which US health care companies? Pharmaceutical companies and Wal-Mart are on board.

Originally posted by BernG:

Personal Stories of Healthcare Systems Around the World

To the US Congress and the American people,
We urge you to ignore the myths about health systems in our country and others that are being pushed by US healthcare companies. Our national system of public healthcare works very well and enjoys extremely high levels of public support. We wish you a healthy and honest debate about healthcare in the US.
– Signed by 83,512 Avaaz members outside the U.S. since 12pm on Wednesday, August 19

Here are their stories:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/health_care_stories/

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by BernG:

Personal Stories of Healthcare Systems Around the World

To the US Congress and the American people,
We urge you to ignore the myths about health systems in our country and others that are being pushed by US healthcare companies. ...

Which US health care companies? Pharmaceutical companies and Wal-Mart are on board.

This is a general petition with comments to demonstrate that Europeans aren't enslaved by socialist health systems (as many here in the US of A have been led to believe) but are in fact quite happy that they are NOT enslaved to private insurers and bill collectors.

You can't expect a petition which is addressed for them to respond to, to list all the nuances of the constantly shifting support or opposition of our various health care stakeholders.

Generally, myths are being propagated by health care companies.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Will medical services have to eventually be 'rationed' like in some countries causing death rather than curing the sick?

I think <i>The Economist</i> put it best in <b><a href="http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14258877">Keep it honest: Rationing is not a four-letter word</a></b>:

BLAME it on the weather or the silly-season absence of more serious news, but arguments about America’s health care have become a touch delirious over the past couple of weeks. People have accused each other of being evil-mongers, dealers in death or even un-American; a sad substitute for a thoughtful debate about a complicated subject that intimately affects every citizen and ties up some $2 trillion a year, a seventh of the world’s largest economy.

Now the distemper has spread across the Atlantic. The enemies of Barack Obama’s health-reform plans have no more potent weapon, it seems, than to accuse him of seeking to replicate Britain’s dreaded National Health Service on American soil. [...]

The second thing to lament about the current apology for a debate is that it is giving the idea of controlling health-care costs a bad name. Mr Obama promised that his reform package would bring down costs, as well as extend coverage. But so spooked has the administration become by accusations of “rationing” health care, as is done in “socialist” systems like the NHS, that very little cost control is now to be expected from whatever bill eventually emerges (see article).

The reality is that America, like Britain, already makes extensive use of rationing. Around half of all Americans are covered by one government programme or another, including those providing health-insurance for the elderly, the poor and government employees. These schemes lay down in great detail, in the form of national and local “coverage determinations”, which treatments and procedures can be claimed for, and at what rates. And all but the most expensive private insurance policies impose limitations of their own. A more honest discussion would accept that cutting costs, as the administration has promised to do, must involve reining in a system that encourages patients to demand tests and procedures that they don’t really need and doctors to recommend them.

As often happens the noise ratio in the US health care debate is now so high and partisan that it may be better to use foreign sources of information. NHS may have fallen victim to this more than most. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4L6-0WRfSA">Michael Moore used Norway</a> as a case of a health care shangri-la with cavorting wheel-chair users, which isn't quite the accurate of how the Norwegian health care system works.

Boy, did that piece nail it.
...........................................................................................................................
I have to report, though, that this marks the first time I've changed my mind in a fundamental way on an important issue because of a thread.

I'm now convinced that poor people who contract lethal diseases or conditions should be allowed to die, hopefully out of public view. What will they want next, free breast augmentation?

Originally posted by BernG:

This is a general petition with comments to demonstrate that Europeans aren't enslaved by socialist health systems (as many here in the US of A have been led to believe) but are in fact quite happy that they are NOT enslaved to private insurers and bill collectors.

I don't feel particularly "enslaved". But I'm sure it's a matter of my own ignorance.

Originally posted by BernG:

Generally, myths are being propagated by health care companies.

Yeah, but to be fair, I've heard quite a few whoppers from proponents of some government-run system as well. Some of them from Obama himself.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Which US health care companies? Pharmaceutical companies and Wal-Mart are on board.

Are pharmaceutical companies and Wal-Mart health care companies? It's always a matter of whose ox is being gored.
...........................................................................................................................
I hope when all of this passes that the Republican Party emblem features a graphic of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. Sane Republicans who are frightened to death of taking on the dynamic duo are a disgrace. The saving grace for the Party at this point is the reluctance of Obama to dirty his hands. Shame on him for helping initiate reform and then going to Martha's Vineyard when the kitchen is heating up.

If this actually impacted me, I'd be genuinely pissed.

Another FOX entry to the national health care debate: <b><a href="http://www.badscience.net/2009/08/national-healthcare-a-breeding-ground-for-terrorism/">National Healthcare: a breeding ground for terrorism?</a></b>

Whenever I think it can't possibly get any more retarded, FOX 'news' comes around and proves me wrong

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by pba:

2. Our biggest problem with costs has nothing to do with the billing system, public vs private, for profit vs government beauracracy or any of that. Its our lifestyle. We have soaring rates of diabetes, high blood pressure, etc. These are long, expensive health problems that are avoidable. People in Europe walk more, eat better, and generally have a healthier lifestyle. If we could achieve that, we would see our costs drop like a rock.

I don't think you can disentangle the affordability of public vs. private healthcare from having a healthier lifestyle. In general, the poorer the individual, the poorer the health of that individual.

I dont diasagree, but I dont see how this shows that a public system will control costs better than a private system. Still, what we see in the US is a more destructive lifestyle. We are #1 in world for Obesity and teenage pregnancy - two major factors in long-term health costs. When I moved to Prague I lost 20 lbs without trying. When I came back to the US, I gained it back. We dont walk here, and cheap unhealthy food is everywhere. You can pay the doctors and hospitals from a public fund, or a private insurance company, its not going to change those things. Public healthcare will not make the poor richer - in fact, the poorest here generally qualify for free government healthcare already. Its the people working for small businesses that are unable to leverage the same deals the massive corporations get that have problems affording it. Get insurance away from the employer and essentially the whole country becomes one big "group".

Originally posted by jax:

Another FOX entry to the national health care debate: National Healthcare: a breeding ground for terrorism?

wow I'm starting to think Fox is secretly run by Democrats - their strategy being to completely discredit their opposition by appearing to represent it in such nonsensical fashion.

Health Care as it is presently packaged cost the US economy approximately 10% of it's GDP. The trend of health care indicates that in the near future health care will approach 20% of GDP. All of our present health care "fixes" do not take in account that health care as we know it will change becoming less labor intensive, and better patient monitoring. Well here is a link to my blog concerning future changes.

Future of Medicine or musings of a hypochondriac?
http://my.opera.com/grysmn/blog/

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Which US health care companies? Pharmaceutical companies and Wal-Mart are on board.

Are pharmaceutical companies and Wal-Mart health care companies? It's always a matter of whose ox is being gored.

It depends on how you define "health care companies", I guess. Pharmaceutical companies seem to be as much "health care companies" as the insurance industry, at least to me. Wal-Mart I included as an example of a usual "corporate" bogeyman now in the role of Democrat champion.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

I hope when all of this passes that the Republican Party emblem features a graphic of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. Sane Republicans who are frightened to death of taking on the dynamic duo are a disgrace. The saving grace for the Party at this point is the reluctance of Obama to dirty his hands. Shame on him for helping initiate reform and then going to Martha's Vineyard when the kitchen is heating up.

If this actually impacted me, I'd be genuinely pissed.

Obama may be reluctant to "dirty his hands", but Emanuel and Axelrod most definitely aren't quite as squeamish. And how "dirty" do you want Obama's hands to be?

I think the Democratic Party at this point may be better off not passing this particular bill. If they pass it, I see them getting slaughtered at the polls next year. Seriously. And then tackling cap-and-trade and immigration reform next year? Yikes.

The fact is, the public seems to be growing increasingly disenchanted with Obama's agenda. And let's face it, his agenda wasn't really examined much in the campaign by a media more interested in how much the RNC spent on Sarah Palin's wardrobe of if she was actually the grandmother of her child. Nor was McCain's. "Yes We Can!!!" and "Country First!!!" was about as far as it went.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

The saving grace for the Party at this point is the reluctance of Obama to dirty his hands. Shame on him for helping initiate reform...

Obama frequently refers to "my plan", but I have yet to see an Obama plan. Have you?

Originally posted by fanfaron:

I see them getting slaughtered at the polls next year.

Let's keep our fingers crossed Ron Paul will get elected!
After all, many people now acknowledge him as being the first to predict this recession.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

I hope when all of this passes that the Republican Party emblem features a graphic of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. Sane Republicans who are frightened to death of taking on the dynamic duo are a disgrace. The saving grace for the Party at this point is the reluctance of Obama to dirty his hands. Shame on him for helping initiate reform and then going to Martha's Vineyard when the kitchen is heating up.

You might be better advised to look for something other than the usual villains:

...the president and congressional Democrats should have known that there was a real risk of government overload if they pushed a big sweeping health care bill with a public option as a centerpiece and a $1 trillion price tag. The safest move would have been to lose the public option from the beginning. But if the Democrats were going to make their case for it, their only hope was to rally behind one plan, show in concrete and credible terms that it was fully paid for and then spend months educating the public about the benefits of a public option and why it is essential to achieving the president's top goal of reducing costs.

Instead, the Democrats did the exact opposite. The president chose not to lead with his own plan, and Congress filled the vacuum with a multitude of partisan bills. This only heightened the public's confusion and wariness. The Democrats went back and forth for weeks on how to pay for their bills and then settled on Medicare cuts as the prime cost-saver, fueling doubts about whether it would be deficit neutral as the president promised. Worst of all, the House bills, which have been the locus of public attention, were found by CBO to actually raise costs instead of lowering them. That undermined the president's credibility and the public's confidence in Congress' competence.

BINGO! Although I'd disagree with Gerstein's characterization of Republicans as "obstructionists" in this case. "Opportunists", yeah, as opposition parties always are. But the Democrats' problem is with moderates in their own party. The Republicans can't stop anything.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

BINGO! Although I'd disagree with Gerstein's characterization of Republicans as "obstructionists" in this case.

I'll stick with the usual villains, but will allow others into this dismal party. I'd begin by questioning Gerstein's self-identification as a Democrat. Whatever he might be, that claim was belayed by his role in the Lieberman campaign. It's a big tent, though, so his nose might be inside the fringe.

I don't disagree that some Democrats have played this very badly. Obama is one of them, maybe the worse. Enjoy your vacation, Mr. President.

I don't think that anybody can make a reasonable argument by characterizing everybody with a party label, not even myself. Are Republicans obstructionists. Of course they, but, no, they're not. Which Republicans?

I will argue that those in the party who won't disavow the worst voices in the party are as guilty as Palin and Limbaugh are of reducing the issue to reprehensible labels. Romney is a prime example. Most of all, he wants to portray himself as a reasonable man. I'd grant him that, but not grant him the luxury of appearing to oppose the Palins and Limbaughs without saying a discernible word about their disgraceful rhetoric. Instead, he offers that the party is "a big tent." Political cowardice. Are there Democrats like that? You bet your sweet ass.

What do the American people want? That question is worse than making blanket statements about what Democrats and Republican want. At least we know that the latter want to be re-elected.

BINGO!

Originally posted by Jaybro:

I will argue that those in the party who won't disavow the worst voices in the party are as guilty as Palin and Limbaugh are of reducing the issue to reprehensible labels. Romney is a prime example. Most of all, he wants to portray himself as a reasonable man. I'd grant him that, but not grant him the luxury of appearing to oppose the Palins and Limbaughs without saying a discernible word about their disgraceful rhetoric. Instead, he offers that the party is "a big tent." Political cowardice. Are there Democrats like that? You bet your sweet ass.

But the same public that can be trusted to have sufficiently unfavorable views of the likes of Palin and Limbaugh -- and favorable views of Obama last November -- can't be said to be misled by same if Obama and his agenda sink in approval. In other words, Palin and Limbaugh at this point would have to be irrelevant. After all, neither of them has a vote in the House or Senate. I think the proponents could have done better than to complain about those mean, nasty naysayers.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

What do the American people want? That question is worse than making blanket statements about what Democrats and Republican want. At least we know that the latter want to be re-elected.

Of course they do. It's their primary function. You can tell a lot about the mood of the public though by determining what those in Congress think might be the policy position most likely to lead to re-election. It's why we had so many super-"patriots" in March 2003, but so many disillusioned, reasonable "statesmen" in 2006. Government-by-poll.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

But the same public that can be trusted to have sufficiently unfavorable views of the likes of Palin and Limbaugh -- and favorable views of Obama last November -- can't be said to be misled by same if Obama and his agenda sink in approval. In other words, Palin and Limbaugh at this point would have to be irrelevant. After all, neither of them has a vote in the House or Senate. I think the proponents could have done better than to complain about those mean, nasty naysayers.

First, "the same public" is not the same public. There are publics. Following those publics around trying to figure what the hell they want is a full time job. The problem that those in the media make is the same one you're making. There is no public with a clear agenda. And polling, which is a very rough tool, doesn't help, either.

Do you think that influence is only about "a vote in the House or Senate"?

I'm complaining, and I'm not "the proponents." I know why I want change in public health care, and so far I've not heard anybody in the debate that's supposed to be going on vocalize it.

Nature is an undiscriminating bitch who cares not who comes programmed with genes that favor brain tumors, cares not who comes with a withered leg or a brain that makes a decent living impossible. I, however, do care. That's why I favor a system of government that takes all that into consideration. We can be better stewards of the unfortunate. That's just the core, though. The rest is too much for these forums. I'll just hint that those with real power make sure that the system tilts in a favorable way, and they tend toward the Republican end of the spectrum. Republicans don't really dislike government; they just want to be sure that the milkmaids are carefully selected.

I don't have anything to teach to anybody, and I'll never convince you that you're misguided or ought to reconsider.

Hence, BINGO! Over and out.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

I'm complaining, and I'm not "the proponents." I know why I want change in public health care, and so far I've not heard anybody in the debate that's supposed to be going on vocalize it.

I wasn't referring to you as a "proponent"; I was referring to those Congresspersons who want us to swallow something they apparently have little idea about. Same for Obama. "Health care for all" just is a little too general. I'm all for universal coverage, and I was enthusiastic about TennCare back in the 90s. That didn't turn out too well. I want to see more specifics.

Never fear though. Something will pass.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

I'll just hint that those with real power make sure that the system tilts in a favorable way, and they tend toward the Republican end of the spectrum. Republicans don't really dislike government; they just want to be sure that the milkmaids are carefully selected.

Certainly, but Republicans for all practical purposes have been legislatively irrelevant since early January.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

I was referring to those Congresspersons who want us to swallow something they apparently have little idea about. Same for Obama. "Health care for all" just is a little too general.

Those are just the preliminary skirmishes that frequently attend legislation. I don't see this as that different from other initiatives, except that there may be more political fear than usual. I'm sure that's particularly true for both fringe Democrats and Republicans. Let's face it, it isn't crystal clear to them what their constituents are thinking. Once again, the devil is in the details.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Republicans for all practical purposes have been legislatively irrelevant since early January.

Oh, I think those who want to be positively involved will be welcomed into the deliberations. This is an easy one for legislators from the right parts of the country to lambaste.
....
Take a look at this brief piece. Quite interesting. I was aware of the numbers, but not some of the other details in the article.

A new poll by a nonpartisan, D.C.-based research group finds truly overwhelming support for the public option. The kicker: The poll was bankrolled partly by previous opponents of health care reform, including one of the nation’s best-known insurance companies.

The poll — which was just released by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a D.C. policy think tank — finds that a majority (53%) strongly back the availability of a public plan, while another 30% “somewhat” support it. That’s a total of 83% in favor of a public plan — a staggeringly large majority.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/poll-bankrolled-by-foes-of-health-care-reform-finds-overwhelming-support-for-public-plan/

People make a mistake when they think the battle for health care reform is about ideology, because it's not. It's about who controls K Street and the cash that flows from it, which could fund a 2010 GOP resurgenece -- or not.

The Baucus Caucus: PhRMA, Insurance, Hospitals and Rahm

This is how things always work. The industry interests which own and control our government always get their way. When is the last time they didn't? The "public option" was something that was designed to excite and placate progressives (who gave up from the start on a single-payer approach) -- and the vast, vast majority of progressives (all but the most loyal Obama supporters) who are invested in this issue have been emphatic about how central a public option is to their support for health care reform. But it seems clear that the White House and key Democrats were always planning on negotiating it away in exchange for industry support. Isn't that how it always works in Washington? No matter how many Democrats are elected, no matter which party controls the levers of government, the same set of narrow monied interests and right-wing values dictate outcomes, even if it means running roughshod over the interests of ordinary citizens (securing lower costs and expanding coverage) and/or what large majorities want.

Why the health care debate is so important regardless of one's view of the "public option"

Money, the mother's milk of politics. Anybody looking for purity should look elsewhere.

What gets lost in these liberal writers is the public interest. They're so involved in process that they fail to do the difficult analysis, and it could be that they have it right. Maybe the ability to shepherd the game depends on controlling the flow of money. Do Democrats have any health endgame, or is it all about political funding? I think that there's some difference between most Republicans and most Democrats.

When I was marginally involved in committee work that touched on the selection and support of local politicians in Michigan many years ago, the last thing on our agenda was anything to do with who could come up with even one penny of funding. We had a rough agenda. Politics as I see it is a mix of gut interests and getting elected. There are issues that matter.

Originally posted by lucideer:

http://maxkeiser.com/2009/09/01/thousands-of-americans-move-to-mexico-for-health-care-system/

Nice joke!

Originally posted by lucideer:

http://maxkeiser.com/2009/09/01/thousands-of-americans-move-to-mexico-for-health-care-system/

Sometimes you get what you pay for. I actually paid for a PC desktop version of Opera when IE was free.

There can be no such thing as "Universal Healthcare." Given that healthcare is a limited resource someone has to be worse off for someone to be better off. That is, in order for surgery to be performed on a patient with heart failure the costs must be recovered by limiting or denying treatment to other patients. And since everything, and I do mean everything, has a cost (regardless of economic system) it is impossible to have healthcare for everyone. At least, not an efficient one. And since I prefer not to surrender my right to barter for anything I want or need - believe me I have no need for a middleman - that means that I must compete with others for helathcare. Just because the Dominion of Canada, the UK, Germany, and whoever else cares to ration or socialize healthcare, there can be no illusion that everyone competes for care as in any other country, be it via bribes to bureaucrats, doctors, or simply finding care out of the country. Socialized medicine is an illusion, so the question ought to be which pill would you prefer: the red or the blue pill? No one should be forced to follow Alice down the rabbit hole.