Universal health care

[Navy1960]

No, he is only talking about National Health Insurance. The doctors and hospitals would still be privately owned.

A HC provider Chris is what was mentioned in the post not an Insurance company. I am absolutly NOT in favor of nationalizing healthcare, however I do believe that the government can and does have the ability to "regulate" the insurance industry as well as the healthcare industry in order to make healthcare more affordable for those cannot afford it. IMHO one of the reasons this has not been done, are the very same people we elect to represent us year after year have been bought and paid for by these insurance companies both republican and democrat. I am a strong supporter in providing for the elderly and those cannot care for themselves, I believe as a nation we have an obligation and are measured by our compassion for those that cannot take care for themsleves. However, someone who does have the ability to care for themselves should be able to afford healthcare on the market and should not be priced out of the market, if congress would do their jobs and regulate which they have the power to do. The Hawaii program is a visiual display of what happens when a government run healthcare program is made available to all, it is mismanaged, rampant with abuse, and the overall quality of healthcase suffers under such a system. The state of Hawaii would have been better off mandating caps for healthcare coverage in their states and floors as well, thats called regulating and not competing in the private market place where government does not belong.

 

[rayboyusmc]

How could it be "universal" when not all children were covered?

It works in other countries. A version can work here. Or we can just let the 50 million without coverage run up our costs by going to the emergency room. Or is you are really a compassionate conservative, you can just let them die.

Mind slaves of the AMA and the RNC

 

[DiamondDave]

How could it be "universal" when not all children were covered?

It works in other countries. A version can work here. Or we can just let the 50 million without coverage run up our costs by going to the emergency room. Or is you are really a compassionate conservative, you can just let them die.

Mind slaves of the AMA and the RNC

Again.. is this a right you are owed by anyone? No

And if, with this being down further on Maslow's hierarchy of needs and it is supposed to be a true 'need', I guess things like food, shelter, etc (that are also your responsibility, and not mine) are also owed to you at the expense of everyone else?

Charities that help the less fortunate and the ones who truly cannot take care of themselves (and there is a HUGE difference between cannot an WILL NOT) are all well and good and I suppot those efforts fully.. but it is not the job or requirement for everyone else to take care of you, nor is it the job of government to mandate that you do thru either a nationalized healtchacre system or a national 'no other option' insurance system at the expense of others for your benefit

 

[Navy1960]

I have said this many times, and will say it again, since when in the United States did terms like self reliance, and personal responsibility become bad words. Those are foundations in which this country was built, it is true that we as a nation have an obligation as I mentioned earlier to take care of the elderly and those that "CANNOT" take care of themselves. However, something that is not earned should not be given, and that includes healthcare. If this nation was serious about healthcare then it is a simple matter of passing a mandate on entry level costs for health insurance coverage as part of regulating the health insurance industry. What some people see recently is that somehow "healthcare" has morhped into a constitutional right. When in fact some people confuse the words "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " from the declaration of independance as somehow healthcare rights under the constitution. The fact remains that healthcare is an individual responsibility , much like voting and you as an individual need to TAKE responsibility to see to it that YOU have healthcare through your work or in a private fashion. If you have children, then it is YOUR responsibility too see to it that YOUR children are covered. It is NOT your neighbors responsibility. The problem with Universal government mandated healthcare , forgetting all the other management issues associated with it, is it tells a person they no longer have to take responsibility for themselves or their family and ceeds that right to the government. IMO this cry to Universal Healthcare is a call to the nation that we no longer want to take responsibility for ourselves and that is indeed sad.

Yes, it is sad that many are not covered, but you as a voter want people to be covered, then call your congressmen and get them off their collective backsides and into the regulating business which they are constitutionally mandated to do. If enough people rode their collective asses like zoro then you know what the costs of entry level healthcare for millions could be by law mandated as part of regulating the health insurance industry.

 

[xsited1]

How could it be "universal" when not all children were covered?

The goal was to cover all children who did not have coverage.

 

[editec]

editec, you are correct.

The system that works best is a single payer system. There are inherent cost savings to a single payer system because you cut out liability lawyers, insurance companies, and Big Pharma. It is not socialism because the doctors still own their own practices.

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org

No I'm even corrector than that.

Single payer universal health insurance won't work for long either.

Whe I say socialized medicine, now I am talking about the whole system, doctors, hospitals, nurses, ALL working for the STATE.

If you put the single player insurance in place, and have them pay PRIVATE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY, then all that inevitably happens is that the cost of health care goes up to capture the extra money chasing the same amount of health care services that has existed all along.

A market solution to this problem is to start training NEW PERSONAL, and building NEW HOSPITALS.

That MIGHT drive down the cost of health care somewhat...maybe.

But even that isn't going to work, I think, because what we know about health care is that it doesn't respond to market forces the way most things do.

What we discover is that increased number of HC providers actaully increases the cost of health care without substantially effecting morbitity and mortaility stats for the better.

As reluctant as I am to come to this conclusion, I have concluded, after over thirty years of thinking about this problem and watching one system after the other fail, that the only avenues that we should consider taking are either fully socialized health care or we just learn to accept the fact that the poor won't be getting access to health care.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I have said this many times, and will say it again, since when in the United States did terms like self reliance, and personal responsibility become bad words. Those are foundations in which this country was built, it is true that we as a nation have an obligation as I mentioned earlier to take care of the elderly and those that "CANNOT" take care of themselves. However, something that is not earned should not be given, and that includes healthcare. If this nation was serious about healthcare then it is a simple matter of passing a mandate on entry level costs for health insurance coverage as part of regulating the health insurance industry. What some people see recently is that somehow "healthcare" has morhped into a constitutional right. When in fact some people confuse the words "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " from the declaration of independance as somehow healthcare rights under the constitution. The fact remains that healthcare is an individual responsibility , much like voting and you as an individual need to TAKE responsibility to see to it that YOU have healthcare through your work or in a private fashion. If you have children, then it is YOUR responsibility too see to it that YOUR children are covered. It is NOT your neighbors responsibility. The problem with Universal government mandated healthcare , forgetting all the other management issues associated with it, is it tells a person they no longer have to take responsibility for themselves or their family and ceeds that right to the government. IMO this cry to Universal Healthcare is a call to the nation that we no longer want to take responsibility for ourselves and that is indeed sad.

Yes, it is sad that many are not covered, but you as a voter want people to be covered, then call your congressmen and get them off their collective backsides and into the regulating business which they are constitutionally mandated to do. If enough people rode their collective asses like zoro then you know what the costs of entry level healthcare for millions could be by law mandated as part of regulating the health insurance industry.

Entitlements, if given, need to be presented and received as either a gift, such as shelter for the homeless or as an obligation for previous service, such as military or VA benefits.

In the case of the gift, the most valuable gift those that 'have' can give to those that 'have not' is education, so that they can grow into contributors.

If I'm hungry and I ask you to share your fish, you can be a dick and watch me starve, you can be a fool and feed me unconditionally, or you can teach me to fish so that together we can feed and teach the next poor hungry bastard we find.

-Joe

 

[BlackAsCoal]

I have said this many times, and will say it again, since when in the United States did terms like self reliance, and personal responsibility become bad words. Those are foundations in which this country was built, it is true that we as a nation have an obligation as I mentioned earlier to take care of the elderly and those that "CANNOT" take care of themselves. However, something that is not earned should not be given, and that includes healthcare. If this nation was serious about healthcare then it is a simple matter of passing a mandate on entry level costs for health insurance coverage as part of regulating the health insurance industry. What some people see recently is that somehow "healthcare" has morhped into a constitutional right. When in fact some people confuse the words "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " from the declaration of independance as somehow healthcare rights under the constitution. The fact remains that healthcare is an individual responsibility , much like voting and you as an individual need to TAKE responsibility to see to it that YOU have healthcare through your work or in a private fashion. If you have children, then it is YOUR responsibility too see to it that YOUR children are covered. It is NOT your neighbors responsibility. The problem with Universal government mandated healthcare , forgetting all the other management issues associated with it, is it tells a person they no longer have to take responsibility for themselves or their family and ceeds that right to the government. IMO this cry to Universal Healthcare is a call to the nation that we no longer want to take responsibility for ourselves and that is indeed sad.

Yes, it is sad that many are not covered, but you as a voter want people to be covered, then call your congressmen and get them off their collective backsides and into the regulating business which they are constitutionally mandated to do. If enough people rode their collective asses like zoro then you know what the costs of entry level healthcare for millions could be by law mandated as part of regulating the health insurance industry.

"pull yourself up by your bootstrap", self-reliance", "personal responsibility" .. all great theories which require a functioning government with an economy that provides the opportunities for everyone to benefit and engage in the buzz words you describe, because without that government and economy, they're just theories, not realistic goals.

Have you noticed our economy lately?

Noticed the cost of healthcare?

You think so many people are out of work and under-employed because they're sitting on their collective asses?

We just spent about a trillion dollars bailing out out uber-rich people .. "pull yourself up by your bootstraps", "self-reliance", "personal responsibility" .. does any of that apply to uber-rich people? How much coverage would a trillion dollars buy?

The US spends more money on war and weapons of mass-destruction than the rest of planet earth while many of its citizens are asking themselves if they can even afford to live given the cost of their healthcare .. is that intelligent government in your opinion?

Irrespective of government .. does society have a responsibility to itself?

 

[Navy1960]

No I'm even corrector than that.

Single payer universal health insurance won't work for long either.

Whe I say socialized medicine, now I am talking about the whole system, doctors, hospitals, nurses, ALL working for the STATE.

If you put the single player insurance in place, and have them pay PRIVATE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY, then all that inevitably happens is that the cost of health care goes up to capture the extra money chasing the same amount of health care services that has existed all along.

A market solution to this problem is to start training NEW PERSONAL, and building NEW HOSPITALS.

That MIGHT drive down the cost of health care somewhat...maybe.

But even that isn't going to work, I think, because what we know about health care is that it doesn't respond to market forces the way most things do.

What we discover is that increased number of HC providers actaully increases the cost of health care without substantially effecting morbitity and mortaility stats for the better.

As reluctant as I am to come to this conclusion, I have concluded, after over thirty years of thinking about this problem and watching one system after the other fail, that the only avenues that we should consider taking are either fully socialized health care or we just learn to accept the fact that the poor won't be getting access to health care.

In 2007, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent — two times the rate of inflation.1 Total spending was $2.3 TRILLION in 2007, or $7600 per person.1 Total health care spending represented 16 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4.2 TRILLION in 2016, or 20 percent of GDP.1

Do you have any idea edit, how much money your talking about here? The cost to aquire every single facility, salaries, etc. etc. The pharmaceutical and biotech industries alone are well over trillion dollar industries. So you propose the government just up and take them? If you don't then the cost alone for the government to aquire the the entire US medical infrastructure alone would bankrupt this country for the next 50 years. As I mentioned earlier, if the goal is to get access to health insurance converage to those that cannot afford it then congress has the power to do it, they simply won't, it's a matter of regulation. The fact is you will NEVER have 100% coverage unless you mandate it and IMO edit that is not in the governments job description and NO where in the constitution is it supported, unless they are reffering to this,

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare.

In United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution. According to the Court in Butler, the spending program invaded a right reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.

Though the Court decided that Butler was consistent with Madison's philosophy of limited federal government, it adopted Hamilton's interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, which gave Congress broad powers to spend federal money. It also established that determination of the general welfare would be left to the discretion of Congress.

In short its a tax and spend clause. So if you want the federal government to have Universal Health Care like you propose , your looking at a constitutional amendement which will never get ratified. So back to the regulating question which is a better solution.

 

[DiamondDave]

"pull yourself up by your bootstrap", self-reliance", "personal responsibility" .. all great theories which require a functioning government with an economy that provides the opportunities for everyone to benefit and engage in the buzz words you describe, because without that government and economy, they're just theories, not realistic goals.

Have you noticed our economy lately?

Noticed the cost of healthcare?

You think so many people are out of work and under-employed because they're sitting on their collective asses?

We just spent about a trillion dollars bailout out uber-rich people .. "pull yourself up by your botstraps", "self-reliance", "personal responsibility" .. does any of that apply to uber-rich people? How much coverage would a trillion dollars buy?

The US spends more money on war and weapons of mass-destruction than the rest of planet earth while many of its citizens are asking themselves if they can even afford to live given the cost of their healthcare .. is that intelligent government in your opinion?

In a free society.. economy good or bad.. it still does not make your personal responsibility the responsibility of someone else or the government

The government is charged however, with national security and national defense... not to be your mommy, your nurse, your insurance company, or your healthcare provider

And I fully agree that the bank/economic bailout was not the responsibility of the government... but, because it was wrong, it does not mean you try and make another wrong as a tit-for-tat

 

[Bern80]

Yeah, this is another of the reasons that I insist that the only way to provide complete coverage for everyone is to have complete socialistic health care.

If private HC insurers are around competing with a government sponsored HC insurer, the private companies can and will cherrypick their clients such that they end up covering the healthiest population while leaving the old and sickly to the government insurance scheme to carry.

So those parents were just doing what was rational for them personally.

Obviously the government system was cheaper for them, and so naturally they gravitated to it.

Maine's health care system is in trouble, too, just as I said it would become.

It's taken on more responsibility than it has money to pay for.

The ONLY way we're going to have 100% HC coverage is if we have a fully socialized health care system.

And yes, by that I mean that the HC providers will work directly for the government.

Every other quasi-socialistic scheme my fellow liberals cobble together is bound to fail.

Okay you just said Maine has more than it can handle. If a state government can't even handle the burden of even partially government funded healthcare how is it you think the federal government would be able to handle it for everyone?

And i hate to continually beat a dead horse about this, but why is your health my responsiblity in the first place?

 

[AVG-JOE]

In 2007, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent — two times the rate of inflation.1 Total spending was $2.3 TRILLION in 2007, or $7600 per person.1 Total health care spending represented 16 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4.2 TRILLION in 2016, or 20 percent of GDP.1

Do you have any idea edit, how much money your talking about here? The cost to aquire every single facility, salaries, etc. etc. The pharmaceutical and biotech industries alone are well over trillion dollar industries. So you propose the government just up and take them? If you don't then the cost alone for the government to aquire the the entire US medical infrastructure alone would bankrupt this country for the next 50 years. As I mentioned earlier, if the goal is to get access to health insurance converage to those that cannot afford it then congress has the power to do it, they simply won't, it's a matter of regulation. The fact is you will NEVER have 100% coverage unless you mandate it and IMO edit that is not in the governments job description and NO where in the constitution is it supported, unless they are reffering to this,

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

According to James Madison, the clause authorized Congress to spend money, but only to carry out the powers and duties specifically enumerated in the subsequent clauses of Article I, Section 8, and elsewhere in the Constitution, not to meet the seemingly infinite needs of the general welfare.

In United States v. Butler, 56 S. Ct. 312, 297 U.S. 1, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a federal agricultural spending program because a specific congressional power over agricultural production appeared nowhere in the Constitution. According to the Court in Butler, the spending program invaded a right reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.

Though the Court decided that Butler was consistent with Madison's philosophy of limited federal government, it adopted Hamilton's interpretation of the General Welfare Clause, which gave Congress broad powers to spend federal money. It also established that determination of the general welfare would be left to the discretion of Congress.

In short its a tax and spend clause. So if you want the federal government to have Universal Health Care like you propose , your looking at a constitutional amendement which will never get ratified. So back to the regulating question which is a better solution.

The answer lies not in nationalizing any productive industry, including health care. The answer lies in nationalizing insurance... it is just a pool of money after all, and not and industry that produces anything.

There is a simple choice... Manage that pool of insurance money to lower costs and help cover the poor or manage that pool of funds with a goal of golden parachutes for the executive few... The choice is ours.

-Joe

 

[BlackAsCoal]

In a free society.. economy good or bad.. it still does not make your personal responsibility the responsibility of someone else or the government

The government is charged however, with national security and national defense... not to be your mommy, your nurse, your insurance company, or your healthcare provider

And I fully agree that the bank/economic bailout was not the responsibility of the government... but, because it was wrong, it does not mean you try and make another wrong as a tit-for-tat

An intelligent SOCIETY provides for the best interests of those who live in it.

Do you also disagree with Social Security, Medicaid, medicare, and other institutions of government designed to help seniors, vets, children, and the disabled? .. Is government being "their mommy", or is it providing assistance to keep our SOCIETY whole?

 

[Navy1960]

"pull yourself up by your bootstrap", self-reliance", "personal responsibility" .. all great theories which require a functioning government with an economy that provides the opportunities for everyone to benefit and engage in the buzz words you describe, because without that government and economy, they're just theories, not realistic goals.

Have you noticed our economy lately?

Noticed the cost of healthcare?

You think so many people are out of work and under-employed because they're sitting on their collective asses?

We just spent about a trillion dollars bailing out out uber-rich people .. "pull yourself up by your botstraps", "self-reliance", "personal responsibility" .. does any of that apply to uber-rich people? How much coverage would a trillion dollars buy?

The US spends more money on war and weapons of mass-destruction than the rest of planet earth while many of its citizens are asking themselves if they can even afford to live given the cost of their healthcare .. is that intelligent government in your opinion?

BaC did you happen to notice, I am not advocating that you leave anyone out in the cold, what I am saying that if this country was serious about coverage for as many of it's citizens as it can get covered then it's a matter is simply having the people we elect to office do their job and it is up to us to hold their collective feet to the fire to see to it that it gets done. The government is in the regulation business , then get busy regulating. I don't see someone that is wealthy as automatically an evil person to be thought of as bad. Rather, I see someone that is successful and in this country we should not punish success but punish those that deserve to be punished be they wealthy or poor for the acts they do. If you are seeking my opinion on the Iraq War its quite simple, first, to deploy into Iraq was in my opinion completely misguided and following that the people that managed it for sometime such as Don Rumsfeld were a disgrace as managers to enter into a conflict without a clear exit Strategy and fighting it on the cheap and with limited forces to do it. That being said,once committed to battle it is clear from a strategic standpoint and from a clear moral standpoint to leave abruptly would be as misguided as much as we got into the War. However. yes, there has been a lot of money spent on the Iraq War that could be spent elsewhere , I will agree to that, but you know, this idea that once out of Iraq suddenly this money will be available for use in paying for Universal Healthcare is simply not the whole story. First, it will take up to 3 years to exit Iraq, so your looking at 2012 before All US forces are out of Iraq and second half of those forces will be redeployed into Afghanistan so, the real cost savings being nice here lets say are hald what Obama claims will not be available till the 2012 Budget.

 

[Bern80]

An intelligent SOCIETY provides for the best interests of those who live in it.

Do you also disagree with Social Security, Medicaid, medicare, and other institutions of government designed to help seniors, vets, children, and the disabled? .. Is government being "their mommy", or is it providing assistance to keep our SOCIETY whole?

It is slighlty disingenuous to imply that an intelligent society is one that simply provides things to people w/o expectation.

 

[AVG-JOE]

In a free society.. economy good or bad.. it still does not make your personal responsibility the responsibility of someone else or the government

The government is charged however, with national security and national defense... not to be your mommy, your nurse, your insurance company, or your healthcare provider

And I fully agree that the bank/economic bailout was not the responsibility of the government... but, because it was wrong, it does not mean you try and make another wrong as a tit-for-tat

Instead of giving people 'stuff', why don't we give people education and opportunities - then and only then can we admonish them to "pull themselves up" if we find their lazy ass begging in the street.

-Joe

 

[DiamondDave]

An intelligent SOCIETY provides for the best interests of those who live in it.

Do you also disagree with Social Security, Medicaid, medicare, and other institutions of government designed to help seniors, vets, children, and the disabled? .. Is government being "their mommy", or is it providing assistance to keep our SOCIETY whole?

An intelligent society has people who voluntarily helps others... not a forced mandate of taking over the personal responsibilities of others..

In a free society, it is not the job of government to be a mommy, doctor, nurse, loan officer, allowance giver or whatever...

NOW... that being said... society can be charged to take care of it's elements that truly CANNOT take care of themselves by any means... the thing is this is not the case with the vast majority of people wanting entitlements, receiving handouts, or whatever...

With the element of freedom, you have inherent positives AND NEGATIVES... it is all part of that freedom and liberty.... but little socialists who love control, are generous with people's money other than their own, do not really care about freedom....

 

[Navy1960]

Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

 

[DiamondDave]

Instead of giving people 'stuff', why don't we give people education and opportunities - then and only then can we admonish them to "pull themselves up" if we find their lazy ass begging in the street.

-Joe

If we voluntarily support and fund charitable organizations to educate adults like this... all the better...

But as adults, we are responsible for ourselves, our individual well being, our decisions and choices, and the consequences of our actions and choices.... I am all for the education of minors, naturally... but when you become an adult, it is up to you whether you educate yourself, how you work and what you earn, how you send, how you take care of yourself....

It is not a mandate of responsibility for others to bear the burden of your personal responsibilities

 

[BlackAsCoal]

BaC did you happen to notice, I am not advocating that you leave anyone out in the cold, what I am saying that if this country was serious about coverage for as many of it's citizens as it can get covered then it's a matter is simply having the people we elect to office do their job and it is up to us to hold their collective feet to the fire to see to it that it gets done. The government is in the regulation business , then get busy regulating. I don't see someone that is wealthy as automatically an evil person to be thought of as bad. Rather, I see someone that is successful and in this country we should not punish success but punish those that deserve to be punished be they wealthy or poor for the acts they do. If you are seeking my opinion on the Iraq War its quite simple, first, to deploy into Iraq was in my opinion completely misguided and following that the people that managed it for sometime such as Don Rumsfeld were a disgrace as managers to enter into a conflict without a clear exit Strategy and fighting it on the cheap and with limited forces to do it. That being said,once committed to battle it is clear from a strategic standpoint and from a clear moral standpoint to leave abruptly would be as misguided as much as we got into the War. However. yes, there has been a lot of money spent on the Iraq War that could be spent elsewhere , I will agree to that, but you know, this idea that once out of Iraq suddenly this money will be available for use in paying for Universal Healthcare is simply not the whole story. First, it will take up to 3 years to exit Iraq, so your looking at 2012 before All US forces are out of Iraq and second half of those forces will be redeployed into Afghanistan so, the real cost savings being nice here lets say are hald what Obama claims will not be available till the 2012 Budget.

The Iraq war is plain and simple, a corporate war, as is what we're doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan .. AND BILLIONS of dollars came up simply LOST, MISSING, Ooopps, it's gone. An intelligent society manages its resources in ways that benefit its citizens, not corporations .. ask Thomas Jefferson.

Here are the facts my brother ...

The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship.. so to suggest that it does not work does not represnt the facts .. not saying you suggested it won't work.

The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990

The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960

The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.

The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana

Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations

The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation

Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.

The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care

State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits

Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money

Private for profit corporations are the lease efficient deliverer of health care. They spend between 20 and 30% of premiums on administration and profits. The public sector is the most efficient. Medicare spends 3% on administration

The point is that our current system does not work efficiently or effectively and does not cover millions of Americans and GROWING .. RAPIDLY GROWING.

At some point an intelligent society must stop clinging to platitudes of the past and correct that which does not benefit the whole.

The failures of the US healthcare system has absolutely nothing to do with individuals pulling themselves up by the bootstraps or siiting on their asses.

Universal healthcare is coming .. it's widely supported by a majority of Americans .. including by many republicans .. and as resources continue to shrink, expect more changes in the way we view our common issues and needs.

If I'm misinterpreting you I apologize