I agree... Universal Healthcare seems so obvious that it makes us look like a backwater nation that we don't have it. Everyone should be entitled to quality essential healthcare. Plus, I believe Gary is right that we are already paying for this through hidden taxes. Regardless of the cost, if we can afford an illegal war, we can afford to take care of our citizens.

Like I said, I've got nothing against Universal Health Insurance, meaning everyone has to have insurance coverage but they should pay for that coverage...not by a tax, and a way to do that is like Massachusetts has done. Another way would be to eliminate health care benefits provided by employers and make mandatory coverage at the expense of the individual the law of the land, with a tax credit to the individual to help cover the premiums.

Anything else would hurt the health industry, over regulate the best parts of our system and cause many doctors to leave the country, or no one would study medicine anymore because they wouldn't be allowed to make enough money to hire their staff, and pay student loans! Hillarycare was a joke...and would have criminalized many things that are common practice in medicine.

When I think about claims of how wonderful free health care is, I just think of --

TheRealCuba

as well as the multitude of stories about long waiting lists, and people dying waiting for their procedures that come out of Canada and UK.

My idea would make the corporations very happy as it would relieve them of the burden of providing health plans anymore, and make them more competitive in the global marketplace. As I think many of them have decided to pass on the expense to government, meaning you and me, and all they really care about is NOT paying for someones health care.

You can't drive without insurance in most states....

I have a problem with making insurance mandatory. As long as the insurance companies are for profit corporations, there is no motive to providing quality medical care. The insurance companies are beholdent to their stock holders, not the patients. Only a government would have the ability to manage such a large program. The government model works in other first world nations. The health of the nation is just as important as its defense.

Your analogy to auto insurance is flawed in that driving is a privilege, not a right. Only those who drive need it, whereas everyone needs healthcare.

Will Republicans ever understand something very simple. Your opinions are not facts and your predictions have been completely wrong, Republicans really do not have ESP.

Exactly the same point can be made about Democrats

Well, Billy, this is not a prediction, and I'm not a Republican. You don't have ESP either.

When you are thinking that the labor, property and facilities of others are things you have a natural right to, that's a fallacy. Do we keep doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals in bondage, and slavery? I don't think so. If you were an auto mechanic would you think people had a right to your labor? They could bring their hurt and ailing cars to you and you would have no choice but to fix it at rates set by some government entity that don't begin to compensate properly? Would you work 12 or 14 hours a day, and sometimes all night to care for their cars because it makes you feel good or something? I don't think so.

As it is right now, we have a terrrific health care delivery system already in place. If you went right now to see a specialist and needed surgery you could get that service quickly, and in time to save your life. You can also have your nose shortened, boobs rebuilt either smaller or larger, you can have a knee replacement, hip replacement, etc, stents to keep blood flowing to your heart, and all this you can get quickly when you need it.

We have a health care delivery system envied by the entire rest of the world. We have well trained doctors, even many who came here because the disliked the oppressive systems in the country of their origin that stifle their choices and kept them financially down. A person doesn't go to school for that long to live in mediocre circumstances, a slave to others. That's one of the reasons many doctors have come here from Canada. We also don't want to make it illegal for doctors to treat people, as Hillarycare would have....

So that part of the equation, the problem, isn't something we want to meddle with, because unintended consequences, those insignificant errors of judgement, can cause our entire system to deteriorate beyond repair.

You are wrong about profits not being a motive to provide quality care. Without the ability to profit, there is no motive. You cannot instill in humans motives to put the wellbeing of others ahead of their own needs or families. Human nature exists, and you can't change it by law or any other way. Because doctors compete by their reputations, and the level of competence and the quality of care, we have good care now. Once you take that away, there is no motive to provide quality care......

Two thing need to be worked out to maintain and keep the type of quality care we have now, 1) tort reform and a realignment of the malpractice part of this, and 2) a payment system that allows people choices, but pays for everything "reasonable and customary."

Currently, insurance companies have systems and well trained people in place doing the job already. People need choices as to what type of coverage they want to pay for, too.

Nah...They perfer to call us Democrats Libral tree hugging fanatics.

While you are correct to say that one can own property, but to drive a car requires a license from the State. There is no right to this license. Your possession of the license is subject to rules and requirements. Violation of the rules can lead to a suspension of the license.

With the US medical system, the majority of doctors and healthcare providers are already in bondage to the insurance companies. The insurance companies set the rates that the providers of medical care receive. An excellent doctor receives the same amount for a office visit/procedure as an average doctor. What is the difference if the government did the same?

The US medical system is only okay if you have insurance or have the money to pay privately. Yes, there many type of services available to paying customers, but the excess capacity makes the system inefficient with respect to per unit cost. Try to receive your terrific medical care in Newark, NJ late on a Saturday night with no medical insurance.....

I am not wrong about profits and medical care. For profit hospitals are FOR PROFIT. Their sole being is to make profits at the expense of health care for the patients. These hospitals answer to their shareholders not the patients or doctors. The same thing goes for insurance companies. They only want healthy patients. There is NO profit in sick ones. Insurance companies are not your friends. They are interested in extracting as much cash from the people and keeping that cash for their corporate profits. Profits go up, stock prices go up, and the bonuses flow to the top managment team. Personally, I rather not have a system that is driven by profit to reward the few at the expense of the sick.

It still amazes me that the US lags behind in providing decent medical care to its citizens like other industrial nations. I have experience with the national healthcare system in Japan, and it puts the US system to shame.

But only if you can afford it. There is no doubt that the medical profession in the US has some of the most advanced and innovative medical treatments available in the world. But what's the point when only a certain portion of the population can afford these treatments. the question isn't whether the treatment exists... the wuestion is whether it is fair that only a certain number of people will be able to avail that system.

Well a few points to ponder here. The only nations that envy the US medical system are third world countries where even basic healthcare facilities are hard to come by. I can assure you that no european nation envies the US medical system. While some of their own aren't the models of excellence ( NHA in UK being a prime example) the fact that healthcare is equally divided among all citizens is a very prized ideal. As a dane i have always felt sad whenever i see TV programs where some patients don't qualify for insurance etc ( i'm talkin ER, Scrubs etc). Personally it eases my conscience inthe face of all the inequality in this world of ours that at LEAST by paying taxes i can assure that every single person in my society gets treated.

It is tragic that MONEY is the qualifying factor in the event you need healthcare. Are you saying that money shows that you are "qualified" to be healthy? Are you saying that the amount of money you ahve clearly indicates how much healthcare you "Deserve"?

I take issue with this statement too. We are talking about billionaires spending a few million more on taxes and we're talking about spending money on healthcare instead of the 531 BILLION spent by this admin on ridiculous military engagements.

We are NOT talking about average Joe being crushed under the burden of excessive taxation. In fact the brunt of the expense SHOULD be borne by the 371 billionaires you have int he US. Tax the top 5% earners in the US just 5% more in taxes. It certainly will not reduce their productivity, it will not lessen their life chances, it will not cause them to give up their cars and private jets, and it will not make one iota of a difference to THEM. It WILL however mean that perhaps MILLIONS more can receive the excellent healthcare that is available in the US.

Lastly, EVEN if the government pays for healthcare, doctors will still be subject to stringent quality control standards, they will always make more according to the number of patients they treat, and they will always be subject to market forces. We are talking about cutting out the insurance companies AND about ensuring that NO TREATMENT is inaccesible to the population.


Although i have no personal experience with Health Insurance compnaies, i have heard a few horror stories. ONE thing comes to mind. A person who has no insurance at the time they get diagnosed with ,let's say diabetes, will have a hell of a time getting insurance and scrounging up the cash required for treatment.

That's miserable for him and its inhumane. Insurance companies, because of their bottom-line concerns, want healthy clients. How does that help the sick ones?

In fact how does a middle-income family in the US protect itself against the chief earner developing schlerosis, or Schizophrenia, or heart disease, or cancer? The problem with the insurance compnies is that the only way you can ACTUALLY be safe is by insuring urself against EVERYTHING.. which average Joe can't afford.

So as a "service" the insurance saleman and the client sit together and gamble with his insurance to only include CERTAIN ailments and ignoring others. That just makes me wanna cry. HOW can you expect average Joe to be able to make a smart decision as to what disease he might get.

I mean a good health insurance salesman will always look to give the coverage that will give the best profit. That means getting the client to pay for insurance he may never use, and ignoring those things that MIGHT happen to him.

there is a clear conflict of interest between the insurance company and the client.. i can not for the life of me understand how your society can allow that.