Equality for All!!!

[Navy1960]

Equality for All
In 1917, like everything else, medical services were nationalized by the new socialist government. Gradually, small medical practices disappeared and a network of big, factory-like hospitals and out-patient clinics were established all around the country. Everyone was registered in both out-patient clinics and hospitals according to their government-assigned residence. Patient choice was completely taken away by the Soviet State, which took full responsibility for centrally planning each individual’s medical expenses and health care.

With the elimination of private expenditures for health services, the form and amount of medical care were now dependent upon the budgetary priorities of the State. All members of the medical industry were put on low fixed monthly salaries and were mandated to examine and treat an overwhelming daily quota of patients. Medical research became dependent upon inadequate annual budgetary allocations from the government. Doctors’ and nurses’ incomes no longer depended on their professional skills or the number of patients they treated. Total unionization of the medical profession made it practically impossible for anyone to be fired. Without markets and prices determining the value and availability of health care, the government imposed a rationing system for medical services and pharmaceutical products.

Specialized services (mammograms, ultrasounds, and so forth) were available only in a few select hospitals where the doctors were supposed to treat patients as well as participate in research. For example, in the case of brain or cardiovascular surgery and treatment, there were only a few specialized hospitals available in the entire country. People sometimes died waiting in line to be admitted for these treatments.

Socialized Health Care: The Communist Dream and the Soviet Reality | Foundation for Economic Education

The problems here should be self evident, if this is the utopia that you are seeking with "Universal Healthcare" then this is what you are going to get. All statistics from the W.H.O. aside, when you look at Canda, the U.K. and several other countries with socialized medicine they all have one common theme. That theme is more coverage less service. So if the goal here is to have a medical system that provides poor quality medical care at the expense of covering everyone then that is what it will achieve.

 

[Nik]

Equality for All
In 1917, like everything else, medical services were nationalized by the new socialist government. Gradually, small medical practices disappeared and a network of big, factory-like hospitals and out-patient clinics were established all around the country. Everyone was registered in both out-patient clinics and hospitals according to their government-assigned residence. Patient choice was completely taken away by the Soviet State, which took full responsibility for centrally planning each individual’s medical expenses and health care.

With the elimination of private expenditures for health services, the form and amount of medical care were now dependent upon the budgetary priorities of the State. All members of the medical industry were put on low fixed monthly salaries and were mandated to examine and treat an overwhelming daily quota of patients. Medical research became dependent upon inadequate annual budgetary allocations from the government. Doctors’ and nurses’ incomes no longer depended on their professional skills or the number of patients they treated. Total unionization of the medical profession made it practically impossible for anyone to be fired. Without markets and prices determining the value and availability of health care, the government imposed a rationing system for medical services and pharmaceutical products.

Specialized services (mammograms, ultrasounds, and so forth) were available only in a few select hospitals where the doctors were supposed to treat patients as well as participate in research. For example, in the case of brain or cardiovascular surgery and treatment, there were only a few specialized hospitals available in the entire country. People sometimes died waiting in line to be admitted for these treatments.

Socialized Health Care: The Communist Dream and the Soviet Reality | Foundation for Economic Education

The problems here should be self evident, if this is the utopia that you are seeking with "Universal Healthcare" then this is what you are going to get. All statistics from the W.H.O. aside, when you look at Canda, the U.K. and several other countries with socialized medicine they all have one common theme. That theme is more coverage less service. So if the goal here is to have a medical system that provides poor quality medical care at the expense of covering everyone then that is what it will achieve.

Of course. Why would you look at statistics when you could just make pronouncements about things with no evidence backing it up?

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

They only thing they never had shortages of was their only true free maket good, bootlegged vodka made from potatoes.

 

[Navy1960]

I'd be happy too Nik , I have posted data on this several times in the past and will be happy to post it here. I fail to see how I was making a pronouncement about things however for your satisfaction here you are.

(AP) A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three months. It added: "If the person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept our sincere apologies."
Canadian Health Care In Crisis - CBS News

As reports over the last year from the Kirby Senate Committee and the Romanow
Commission attest, our Canadian Health Care System is in crisis...
http://www.cwhn.ca/resources/kickers/crisis.pdf

THE NHS is facing its biggest crisis in its history, it was revealed today.

The British National Health Service will be short of a massive £15billion after 2011 and may not ‘survive’ if left unchanged, a report by the NHS Confederation said.
Daily Express | UK News :: Crisis for NHS as £15bn shortfall revealed

The financial crisis facing the NHS must be tackled by cutting waste rather than frontline staff and services, warn experts.
Dire predictions of a huge budget shortfall of between £8bn and £10bn over the three years after 2011 will not leave the NHS unchanged, according to the NHS Confederation.

It says rising costs caused by an ageing population and new treatments will outstrip any modest increases in the pipeline.
NHS crisis should be tackled by cutting waste rather than staff say experts | Mail Online

I'd be happy to provide you with anything else you would like as well Nik but I didn't feel it needed to crowd up my original post.

 

[Navy1960]

I used Fraulein as an example to show that "socialized medicine will eventually lead to healthcare quality going in the tank. I'm sure though this nirvana of healthcare for all though will of course solve that issue when the Fed. Govt. steps in to manage it as well as they have the V.A. and Amtrack.

 

[Nik]

Funny...none of those provide comparisons.

By the way...even with a "financial crisis", NHS is still significantly cheaper than US healthcare.

For some comparisons...

A systematic review of studies comparing health outcomes in Canada and the United States | Guyatt | Array

Interpretation: Available studies suggest that health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent.

Hmm...and lets compare government run healthcare (which isn't even being considered), which is basically VA care, as compared to regular US care.

Well here...read all about it yourself.
"The Best Care Anywhere" by Phillip Longman

 

[RodISHI]

The VA hospital has problems? The one in Des Moines took very good care of Rod last year.

My dad was recently in the county hospital in Twin Falls, Idaho. I'd said for years I would not put my dog there but recently he had heart surgery and last week his kidneys shut down TF was the closet hospital to get him to. Third day in there they put a guy with the flu in the room in the bed next to him. Smart care...from a bunch of dumb ass professionals.

He has blue cross blue shield, medicaid, cash when required so it is not all a matter of cost. Our family doctor there in Idaho knew he'd be better off at home than in the same room with a contagious patient so he sent him home.

We have had the pleasure of having a great doctor for the last ten years. The kind of person that really cares about people. The kind of doc that stills takes eggs and a chicken if that is all one had. He got tired of the local politics and the way the local school and the state education board treated his wife. Her credentials were outstanding, impeccable and they denied her the proper credits at the state level for over three years. She finally got that straighten out and then the school locals denied her the promotion into her trained field over a less qualified local with some strings to pull three times. They finally said to heck with it and moved. Our family doctor is now a So. CA doctor and his wife is a CA teacher.

My grandson broke his arm some years back while with his dad. His dad took him to the local emergency room (dad's an EMT, you'd think he has a few brains somewhere in that big skull of his). By the time my daughter got there grandson had set there for three hours. The nurses did not even put ice on his swelling broken arm. My daughter asked them for an icepack and how long will it be before your doctor get's here? They told her it should not be much longer. Another twenty minutes went by no doctor and nurses that had been reluctant to give her an icepack (daughter is an EMT-firefighter-almost completed the full credits for her paramedic credentials). By then grandson had been at the hospital with a broken arm for three and a half hours. Our doctor is 30 miles away. Daughter calls our doctor and starts to leave the local hospital. The nurses start coming unwound and start threatening her. They are screaming at her that they will have her charged with child abuse if she takes him out of their hospital......

I'd think long and hard before I gave any one entity charge over my health or the health of my loved ones.

I'm thinking how stupid so many people are in government positions now what will we have if they take over medical care?

 

[Navy1960]

Nik I think you fail to see the overall picture, here. When government enters into the healthcare business by acting as an agent to provide healthcare insurance and at the same time regulates others within the same industry it will have the effect of driving people to the Govt. run healhtcare system which will eventually lead to a single source for healthcare which is the goal here.

As for your assertions on NHS, while it is cheaper that does not change the arguement that by being cheaper it changes the quailty which I clearly showed you it does. There are literally thousands of articles on the topic that the quality of healthcare in Canada is in crisis. In fact one of the original authors of Canada's Healthcare system is now pushing for " patient choice".

WASHINGTON, D.C. - An independent report issued today by the leader of the nation’s largest veterans organization paints a gloomy picture for military veterans seeking care in the beleaguered Department of Veterans Affairs health care system. Ronald F. Conley, national commander of the 2.8 million-member American Legion, personally investigated more than 50 VA facilities throughout the country in the past nine months and reported his findings today to the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. “America’s excellent VA health care system – a paragon of quality in so many ways – is being consumed by fiscal neglect,” he reported. “It is my duty as a leader of veterans to share that portrait with those who have the power to change it, and to expose it before a public that is largely unaware a problem even exists. It has been an eye-opening journey.” Conley collected examples of the many ways in which the discretionary appropriations model fails to fulfill the care-giving purposes of VA. “I am now convinced that anything less than a mandatory funding model is a guarantee that veterans, their service organizations, congressional committees and VA officials will continue visiting and revisiting this issue until they realize that 30-percent increases in demand cannot be served by 7-percent increases of funds,” Conley said. While Conley found several facilities rated very high by veterans, he reports that demand has soared, and funding has failed miserably to keep up. “Staff shortages are everywhere,” Conley said. “Those shortages close beds, wards, emergency rooms, nursing homes and intensive care units. The shortages force patients for whom the facilities were built to be turned away. Shortages force the VA secretary to unravel the clear intent of the Veterans Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996 by once again restricting enrollment only to the poorest and sickest among those who served.”
Report: Veterans Health Care in Crisis | American Legion

I'm sorry but the V.A. is NOT a shinning example of Govt. healthcare and is still a wreck despite all the funding increases. I've had the rare privledge of having to deal with the V.A. many times and have seen first hand as compared to private medicine what the difference is. Let me give you and example in some V.A. hospitals due to staffing shortages they often times pull from teaching hospitals inexperienced Doctors to fill in where none can be found leading to an even further downfall in the quality of care.

Report: Veterans Health Care in Crisis | American Legion

Let me see if I understand this the US GDP is 13.84 Trillion dollars and Canada is 1.27 Trillion and accodring to your study you posted the US pays more for healthcare as a percent of GDP that Canada does and the quality number according to my reading depending on what affliction they were talking about was around 5%. Of course we are going to pay more for healthcare in this country we spend more thats fairly obvious. Other factors not listed in the report you gave were things such has liability and the cost of supporting illegal immigrant medical care which in California alone was 1.5 Billion dollars last year. The fact remains for the amount Canada spends on provding healthcare for its citizens the quality and availabilty is in crisis mode and that not me talking. As what I gave you clearly states. The U.K. is not much different and you can see by the old Soviet model what became of that.

Interpretation: Available studies suggest that health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent.

This healthcare issue as I have stated on many other postings is a cost related issue and is easily addresed without mandating healthcare for all and reducing quality of healthcare across the board. If you don't think it is I have a little video for you to watch.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSe3C5vMafM&feature=related]YouTube - 1 Florida Hospital Testimony video goes National on DC news.[/ame]

 

[Nik]

Nik I think you fail to see the overall picture, here. When government enters into the healthcare business by acting as an agent to provide healthcare insurance and at the same time regulates others within the same industry it will have the effect of driving people to the Govt. run healhtcare system which will eventually lead to a single source for healthcare which is the goal here.

It will lead people to government healthcare because government healthcare will be of higher quality. If not, then it won't. Its a win-win, unless you are a shill for insurance companies, which you seem to be.

As for your assertions on NHS, while it is cheaper that does not change the arguement that by being cheaper it changes the quailty which I clearly showed you it does. There are literally thousands of articles on the topic that the quality of healthcare in Canada is in crisis. In fact one of the original authors of Canada's Healthcare system is now pushing for " patient choice".

You showed nothing of the sort. You said they were suffering from financial problems, well so are we.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - An independent report issued today by the leader of the nation’s largest veterans organization paints a gloomy picture for military veterans seeking care in the beleaguered Department of Veterans Affairs health care system. Ronald F. Conley, national commander of the 2.8 million-member American Legion, personally investigated more than 50 VA facilities throughout the country in the past nine months and reported his findings today to the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. “America’s excellent VA health care system – a paragon of quality in so many ways – is being consumed by fiscal neglect,” he reported. “It is my duty as a leader of veterans to share that portrait with those who have the power to change it, and to expose it before a public that is largely unaware a problem even exists. It has been an eye-opening journey.” Conley collected examples of the many ways in which the discretionary appropriations model fails to fulfill the care-giving purposes of VA. “I am now convinced that anything less than a mandatory funding model is a guarantee that veterans, their service organizations, congressional committees and VA officials will continue visiting and revisiting this issue until they realize that 30-percent increases in demand cannot be served by 7-percent increases of funds,” Conley said. While Conley found several facilities rated very high by veterans, he reports that demand has soared, and funding has failed miserably to keep up. “Staff shortages are everywhere,” Conley said. “Those shortages close beds, wards, emergency rooms, nursing homes and intensive care units. The shortages force patients for whom the facilities were built to be turned away. Shortages force the VA secretary to unravel the clear intent of the Veterans Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996 by once again restricting enrollment only to the poorest and sickest among those who served.”
Report: Veterans Health Care in Crisis | American Legion

I'm sorry but the V.A. is NOT a shinning example of Govt. healthcare and is still a wreck despite all the funding increases. I've had the rare privledge of having to deal with the V.A. many times and have seen first hand as compared to private medicine what the difference is. Let me give you and example in some V.A. hospitals due to staffing shortages they often times pull from teaching hospitals inexperienced Doctors to fill in where none can be found leading to an even further downfall in the quality of care.

Report: Veterans Health Care in Crisis | American Legion

I never said it was a "shining example". I said it was better than private healthcare in this country.

Let me see if I understand this the US GDP is 13.84 Trillion dollars and Canada is 1.27 Trillion and accodring to your study you posted the US pays more for healthcare as a percent of GDP that Canada does and the quality number according to my reading depending on what affliction they were talking about was around 5%. Of course we are going to pay more for healthcare in this country we spend more thats fairly obvious.

Umm, what? We are going to pay more if we spend more? What the hell?

Other factors not listed in the report you gave were things such has liability and the cost of supporting illegal immigrant medical care which in California alone was 1.5 Billion dollars last year. The fact remains for the amount Canada spends on provding healthcare for its citizens the quality and availabilty is in crisis mode and that not me talking. As what I gave you clearly states. The U.K. is not much different and you can see by the old Soviet model what became of that.

Again, care to show me a chart comparing areas where liability is capped, and where its not?

As for the price...we pay more per person, and we don't insure tens of millions of people who have essentially no healthcare.

Interpretation: Available studies suggest that health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent.

This healthcare issue as I have stated on many other postings is a cost related issue and is easily addresed without mandating healthcare for all and reducing quality of healthcare across the board. If you don't think it is I have a little video for you to watch.

YouTube - 1 Florida Hospital Testimony video goes National on DC news.

Easily addressed? And how exactly would you address it?

 

[Care4all]

But what exactly do you suggest Navy? What is your sollution to the Health care problems we have in this country?

Leave it the way it is, adding 5 million people to the UNinsured Rolls every 5 years?

With the cost of healthcare rising double digits in price each and every year or above inflation and above our pay raises each and every year, as it has been for over a decade now?

Let businesses go bankrupt, because providing healthcare for their employees and the costs of such brings them to their knees while everyone else globally competing with them for the business does not need to provide health care for their employees because it is already a government benefit, whoops their butt underbidding them for the contracts or business out there?

Or continue to give the private insurance companies 30% of the cost of our healthcare for just pushing paper?

What is it that you and others opposing any healthcare reform think should be done to correct ALL OF THE ILLS of the way things are going now with health care and it's out of control rate hikes each and every year?

Also, do you really believe the tripe that you posted and that doctors and hospitals and medical techs and lab technicians and nurses will all be working and paid for by our government?

Why would the insurance companies be ALL GUNG HO for Obama's plan if they eventually will be wiped out on that slippery slope you imply is coming...are you smarter than the insurance companies making this decision themselves for their stock holders?

I think the insurance companies KNOW they got a good thing coming with Obama's plan...raking in 30% of the healthcare industry gdp for ALL americans will make them even richer and is a mistake personally and would rather figure out a way, to leave the middleman out of it or in the least, leave the for profit private businesses out of it....all businesses involved in our healthcare should be not for profits, nonprofit businesses imo.

once again, what are your solutions to our health care problems, issues?

Care

 

[AllieBaba]

When I see my medicare and medicaid clients getting the same quality of healthcare as those who have private insurance coverage, then I'll buy into the whole ridiculous lie about nationalized health care being somehow better.

The government should NOT be involved in our medical care. They shouldn't be involved in our treatment, they shouldn't be overseeing the medical professionals in any but the most standard sense. They certainly shouldn't have control over our treatment...and that's where this is going.

 

[AllieBaba]

Our healthcare issues are a direct response to our insistence that people do NOT have to be responsible for themselves. When we started peddling that b.s., we started having health care problems.

My clients come to me when they're 60 years old, haven't worked enough in their entire lives to build up ANY social security benefits, and now they need dental care...and somehow it's MY RESPONSIBILITY to make sure they get it.

You know what? It's not my responsibility. People need to be taught from the fucking cradle that they are responsible for themfuckingselves. Otherwise, you'll be 60 years old, no income, been lazing around all your life...and suddenly you honestly CAN'T work, and sorry, there's no net there for you...no magic cure.

We are Americans. Americans have traditionally been independent and hard working. Until the left started telling us that was "bad" and "wrong" and everyone is entitled to free food, free shelter, free medical care...why bother working? It's the GOVERNMENT'S responsibility to take care of you....

What complete crap. It ISN'T the government's job to hold your hand through life. If you can't afford health care, I recommend you get off your fucking ass and come up with a plan. Teach your kids that they are responsible for themselves, and they need to start YOUNG in order to make sure that when a rainy day comes, they are safe.

It's not fucking rocket science.

 

[Nik]

Our healthcare issues are a direct response to our insistence that people do NOT have to be responsible for themselves. When we started peddling that b.s., we started having health care problems.

My clients come to me when they're 60 years old, haven't worked enough in their entire lives to build up ANY social security benefits, and now they need dental care...and somehow it's MY RESPONSIBILITY to make sure they get it.

You know what? It's not my responsibility. People need to be taught from the fucking cradle that they are responsible for themfuckingselves. Otherwise, you'll be 60 years old, no income, been lazing around all your life...and suddenly you honestly CAN'T work, and sorry, there's no net there for you...no magic cure.

We are Americans. Americans have traditionally been independent and hard working. Until the left started telling us that was "bad" and "wrong" and everyone is entitled to free food, free shelter, free medical care...why bother working? It's the GOVERNMENT'S responsibility to take care of you....

What complete crap. It ISN'T the government's job to hold your hand through life. If you can't afford health care, I recommend you get off your fucking ass and come up with a plan. Teach your kids that they are responsible for themselves, and they need to start YOUNG in order to make sure that when a rainy day comes, they are safe.

It's not fucking rocket science.

Well it sure is a great thing that all those people who worked hard, and had medical insurance didn't have to file bankruptcy for medical reasons....

Or, you know...not...

Out-of-pocket medical costs averaged $17,943 for all medically bankrupt families: $26,971 for uninsured patients; $17,749 for those with private insurance at the outset; $14,633 for those with Medicaid; $12,021 for those with Medicare; and $6,545 for those with VA/military coverage. For patients who initially had private coverage but lost it, the family's out-of-pocket expenses averaged $22,568.

http://www.amjmed.com/webfiles/images/journals/ajm/AJMMedicalBankruptcyJun09FINAL2.pdf

$18,000 for people with private insurance...could you handle $18,000 worth of bills to save your life right now?

 

[editec]

The problem of rasing HC costs will not be solved by changing the system OR by keeping it the same, either

The problem of unaffordable HC for most Americans is going to get worse if we do nothing, and it will get worse if we try single payer too.

Either we force the HC industry to expect less money for their services (and we all know how badly those plans work) or we accept that the demograohics are going to make things get worse for most of us.

 

[Nik]

The problem of rasing HC costs will not be solved by changing the system OR by keeping it the same, either

The problem of unaffordable HC for most Americans is going to get worse if we do nothing, and it will get worse if we try single payer too.

Either we force the HC industry to expect less money for their services (and we all know how badly those plans work) or we accept that the demograohics are going to make things get worse for most of us.

We can make healthcare companies expect less money for their "services" and I'm pretty sure things will be fine. Their services mostly consist of charging vast amounts for insurance and hiring hordes of people to find loopholes to deny claims, both things we can do without.

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

We can make healthcare companies expect less money for their "services" and I'm pretty sure things will be fine. Their services mostly consist of charging vast amounts for insurance and hiring hordes of people to find loopholes to deny claims, both things we can do without.

Not necessarily, go back and read the Kerry-Danforth Commission Report recommendations regarding Medicare (1996 I believe), the idea was to come up with ways to reduce healthcare costs by removing inefficiencies from the current healthcare delivery system. Obviously it's a huge endeavor, however if this isn't done it's a moot point because no matter what system of health insurance you come up with rising health care delivery costs will eventually break it.

Medicare already has $36.3 trillion in long term unfunded liabilities (and growing every year) this coupled with unfunded SS liabilities ($6.6 trillion) and other unfunded federal pension liabilities ($13.5 trillion), this is over and above the accumulated federal operating deficits and will eventually lead to the Bankrupting of the Nation anyways. So the question of adding a new federal health insurance program is pretty much moot, long term it is completely unaffordable anyways.

 

[Nik]

We can make healthcare companies expect less money for their "services" and I'm pretty sure things will be fine. Their services mostly consist of charging vast amounts for insurance and hiring hordes of people to find loopholes to deny claims, both things we can do without.

Not necessarily, go back and read the Kerry-Danforth Commission Report recommendations regarding Medicare (1996 I believe), the idea was to come up with ways to reduce healthcare costs by removing inefficiencies from the current healthcare delivery system. Obviously it's a huge endeavor, however if this isn't done it's a moot point because no matter what system of health insurance you come up with rising health care delivery costs will eventually break it.

Medicare already has $36.3 trillion in long term unfunded liabilities (and growing every year) this coupled with unfunded SS liabilities ($6.6 trillion) and other unfunded federal pension liabilities ($13.5 trillion), this is over and above the accumulated federal operating deficits and will eventually lead to the Bankrupting of the Nation anyways. So the question of adding a new federal health insurance program is pretty much moot, long term it is completely unaffordable anyways.

Thats part of the Obama plan, but the problem is that those things are hard to implement because they have a one-off cost that is high, and with Republicans suddenly finding themselves fiscal conservatives again, its hard to get things done even if it will save money in the future.

We spend WAY more money on healthcare than we should. The government should be able to do it for substantially less, and save it, and us, lots of money. But we'll see how well that goes.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

When has the government ever created an entitlement that costs the same or less than they said it would?

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

Thats part of the Obama plan, but the problem is that those things are hard to implement because they have a one-off cost that is high, and with Republicans suddenly finding themselves fiscal conservatives again, its hard to get things done even if it will save money in the future.

Unfortunately the Obama Plan is complete hogwash, because it doesn't address the long term costs. You have to contain the rising healthcare delivery costs FIRST by working with the industry to develop a more efficient delivery system, then you can assess the feasibility of any proposed federal health care plan. Otherwise you're just playing games with smoke & mirrors projections which never work out where the federal government is concerned, they did the same thing with Medicare Part D (a program which a majority of seniors surveyed said they didn't need) and ended up piling on another $8 Trillion in unfunded liabilities instead of the promised cost savings from the program.

Obama's plan is simply designed to give him and the democrats a short term feather in their caps without actually doing the hard work of accomplishing anything to contain rising costs. If you want something workable that won't send your children and grandchildren to the poor house, demand that the difficult work be done up front and then we can talk about expanding federal health insurance.

We spend WAY more money on healthcare than we should. The government should be able to do it for substantially less, and save it, and us, lots of money. But we'll see how well that goes.

Should and will are too very different things and the Federal Government has absolutely no track record of doing ANYTHING for "substantially less".

 

[Navy1960]

Well let's see first let me address your issues again Nik I posted Canada's issues with their healthcase system in a previous post for you to read. If you don't care to read it I cannot force you. The other question you addressed to me was about paying more. Our GDP is much higher than any nations on this planet. So it follows that as a result we are going to spend more on healthcare as we would on any other service in this country.

As for what both you and Care asked me about what I suggest on healthcare I have many suggestions and they do NOT include Govt. mandated healthcare or for that matter Govt. sponsored healthcare. To me this is an issue of service costs out of control. There are many factors that drive those costs among them as in my previous post the high costs of liablity insurance, high costs of illegal immigrant health care, lack of regulation where its needed. The first and easiest thing to do with healthcare is to place strict limits on liability awards and place caps on liability insurance costs to medical service providers. The second thing that can be done and thats quite obvious is as well, is to finally get the illegal immigration issue solved and take the stress off the states and private medical providers of having to provide literally billions of dollars annually in free medical care. Other things that can be done is set limitations and caps on costs for those insurance providers that offer health coverage from state to state. Still even more things you can do is provide tax incentives and grants to companies and Federal loans to companies wishing to go into the medical insurance business to promote competetion. All of these things can be done to drive down costs and make healthcare more affordable for everyone. Still more things you can do is address the Pharm. patent issue. For example, when the FDA issues a patent the FDA can require the companies offer a percentage of their drugs through state programs Free or at little cost to the consumer. You both asked me what I would do, well those are just a few things I suggest that could be done. the problem is that of the 47 million people that are not covered according to US Census how many of those don't need or require coverage or for that matter want it. Healthcare I'm afriad to break it to you both is not a "right" however the commerce and business of healthcare falls within the framework of what our Govt.s charter. I suggest rather than look to other nations who's healthcare systems are underserved because they are run by one entity, we fix the one we have and stop condemning companies because they happen to make a profit.