Clinton unveils mandatory health care insurance plan

[wkmac]

Wkmac I picked this article for several reasons out of 1.1 million returned from the search on google this one was number 2. I thought even though the same numbers were printed on the most viewed article some would dismiss for reasons that are not related to this discussion. I picked the topic of cancer survivability not because the US ranks number one (the US ranks number 1 in most categories directly related to health care) but for these reasons. I wanted to avoid an article and just use the numbers but I was on lunch and time was short. I read five from different sources and the numbers pretty much agreed. I tried my best to avoid excessive drama about the source but it did not work since that was the first thing you mentioned. Oh well. Also Wkmac I have never called you a neo con or selfish or said you were violating my free speech rights
Some facts
1)cancer treatment is more expensive than in other countries
2) survivability is directly related to early detection and availability of medicine and treatment options
3)US companies put more money into cancer research than any other country
4) survivability rates from sickness or disease has more to do with quality health care than life span


When it comes to drug prices you have to ask yourself what you are really willing to trade off for cheap prices. As far as myself on the surface I would be willing to trade off some of the safety of MD oversight on some medications. Claritin D was a good example but now they are probably going to pull it off the shelfs because of the Meth problem. It seems there are always unseen problems that pop up.

As far as the remark on our middle east foreign policy goes I do not have to accept anything that I know is not true.You do not have to accept the numbers in this article but I was really just asking why. If it is true I may not accept for other reasons that I know but cannot prove with a link so I try and keep it to myself but not always successfully . The very funny thing is that the things that we have done wrong over there are never brought up by people against the war they usually just make up things or link to stories that are not true.

Geez, lighten up Francis! Most of that post was meant more as a joke and sorry if it failed to be seen that way. I've just seen here in the past where certain sources of info are on the one hand ridiculed and condemned as "this political type and that political type" (and it happens from all sides of the spectrum) and then at some point that same source previously condemned on a political level is now hailed as the fountion of truth so to speak. Not pointing directly at you on this but just pointing at a bigger and broader element that I've seen here in the past. As a result of your post, I just thought I'd make some fun of us so to speak as to how we all treat sources of info depending on their slant of the facts at the time they are made.

As to the article, Sweden if I'm correct was #2 behind the US and they have a centralized healthcare system if I'm correct. Now how it differs from the British model, I don't know that but why is England so down in the standings while the Sweds are up there? The article to my memory also didn't discuss the raw number of cases and also the number of cases per number of population. We know cancer is effected by environmental conditions as much as genetic so is there something in England not seen in the US or Sweden that is either causing more cancer or a more aggressive type and thus the reason behind the numbers and not the long waiting lines like the story suggests?

I'm not for any type of federalized, centralized healthcare because at the end of the day, like the spoils of taxation, Washington will use standing and position as the politicians dole out who gets what. Healthcare like road and playground projects will become politicized and thus be rationed out among porkbarrel projects in order to buy and sway voters on election day. The more standing and seniority you have or if your party is in power, the more you are likely to get. I have no problem doing these things on a State or local level if the citizens feel the need but keep the control local so if it gets out of hand you either see it quicker or if the citizens are hell bent of this course and it goes wrong, the effects of the disease so to speak are not widespread and are limited to smaller area.

The upside to is if a community hits on something good and has a nice working model, others can see and duplicate and if those communities try and modify the model which doesn't work, it has no ill effects on the original perfected model.

Gov't IMO should always be voluntary and never compulsive. Voluntary always leaves room for the very best to rise to the top as anyone and everyone can not only suggest ideas but even implement those ideas in the free arena. However, if the wrong person or persons take charge, then citizens are free to walk away leaving those corrupt persons holding an empty shell and thus the incentive to take control and manipulate is vastly reduced.

The problem with healthcare is the simple fact it's not a true Free Market arena. It is controlled and a lot more than people realize. I find it ironic that the 2 sides here argue either for or against some format of centralized healthcare. Here's something to ponder in your stew of thought on this issue. We already have centralized healthcare. We have the very socialist model (more Mussolini than Karx Marx however) of healthcare so you guys are arguing over the level this plan will take. Under the current model, as a certain late age in life, it's mandatory you take part in a centralized healthcare plan that over your working life you paid an excise tax to support. EXCISE TAX! Yep, read it and weep:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00003111----000-.html

They place an excise tax on your liberty to labor for the sole purchase of a centralized healthcare system for old folks. Now take the next step if you dare and study the nature of excise taxation and compare that process with the idea that you have freedom and liberty in the same manner as Jefferson wrote " the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness." Have we been had or what?

At the other end of the age spectrum we have something called SCHIPS. Now contrary to myth, Bush is not opposed to SCHIPS but rather he wants $4 billion less to the SCHIPS budget than what the democrats want. The argument is over the level of funding and nothing else. Bush, if you will, is a socialist lite only by the dollar amount as to what he'll pay to implememnt it. And if he could get the republican votes next year with that other $4 billion, you can bet the ranch in Crawford he'd be singing from the rooftops in support of.

As to SCHIPS, in effect for the little people, with the democrats you get the harder stuff and with Bush you get what I can socialized lite. So in the end folks, we have socialized healthcare and we've had it for some time. The only thing left is which socialized model will prevail when it comes to the rest of us. Even Newt's in the socialized game by suggesting a law be passed that would require every person to have health insurance and then subsidize where it's needed. I see Newt has read Mussolini.

The only thing now is you guys are caught up in their BS spin and arguing with one another while they sit in Washington and decide who wins the political spin and gets to feed the taxdollars at the end of the day and buy the votes they need to get elected next year. The democrats are promoting the harder stuff because they've been seen through on the war in Iraq. The war will continue even if they are elected so they need to throw a bone to the base and healthcare is the bone!

Read again what I wrote in the 3rd paragraph from the top and how healthcare will become a porkbarrel project and guess what boys and girls, it's already here!

That My Dear Friends Is the Evil Nature of Centralization of Power!

I'm gonna vote for Walter the Puppet and how many of you will tell me I wasted my vote. But 10 years from now when things are worse, will you have the courage to admit in the end that you really wasted your's?

I know, foolish me!

 

[av8torntn]

As to the article, Sweden if I'm correct was #2 behind the US and they have a centralized healthcare system if I'm correct. Now how it differs from the British model, I don't know that but why is England so down in the standings while the Sweds are up there? The article to my memory also didn't discuss the raw number of cases and also the number of cases per number of population. We know cancer is effected by environmental conditions as much as genetic so is there something in England not seen in the US or Sweden that is either causing more cancer or a more aggressive type and thus the reason behind the numbers and not the long waiting lines like the story suggests?

I'm not for any type of federalized, centralized healthcare because at the end of the day, like the spoils of taxation, Washington will use standing and position as the politicians dole out who gets what. Healthcare like road and playground projects will become politicized and thus be rationed out among porkbarrel projects in order to buy and sway voters on election day. The more standing and seniority you have or if your party is in power, the more you are likely to get. I have no problem doing these things on a State or local level if the citizens feel the need but keep the control local so if it gets out of hand you either see it quicker or if the citizens are hell bent of this course and it goes wrong, the effects of the disease so to speak are not widespread and are limited to smaller area.

The upside to is if a community hits on something good and has a nice working model, others can see and duplicate and if those communities try and modify the model which doesn't work, it has no ill effects on the original perfected model.

Gov't IMO should always be voluntary and never compulsive. Voluntary always leaves room for the very best to rise to the top as anyone and everyone can not only suggest ideas but even implement those ideas in the free arena. However, if the wrong person or persons take charge, then citizens are free to walk away leaving those corrupt persons holding an empty shell and thus the incentive to take control and manipulate is vastly reduced.

The problem with healthcare is the simple fact it's not a true Free Market arena.

Thank you for the reply. My point was and is very simple. People want to make heath care better. Nothing wrong with that we all for the most part seek improvement. The way to improve the system should be obvious. Take the federal government out of it. While to most people it is obvious we have the best health care in the world others dream of having the federal government take care of every need. Why can we not allow health insurance companies to sell insurance nationwide instead of by state? Why do doctors not post their prices? Why is health insurance not considered as part of your income when provided as compensation? Why can we not allow a free market so suppliers can compete for consumers? Why can PA's not provide minor medical care? Why can we not put limits on lawsuits these doctors face? If someone chooses not to have health insurance why should the government force them into it? All of these would be good places to start. Some on here want to raise taxes just to keep anyone from acquiring any wealth and to keep the poor very poor. It should seem odd that while other countries are moving away from socialized medicine people in our country want to move closer to it. Just sad.

 

[moreluck]

Just heard on TV News that Canadian doctors are sending their high risk pregnant patients to the US because they don't have the facilities for these high risk cases.

Universal health care is OK for folks who don't get too seriously sick, but on the really tough cases, the Canadian care is inept at handling harder stuff and need to pass it off

 

[wkmac]

AV8,

Oh I agree that people want good healthcare and the simple fact is that there is a problem in our healthcare system. Healthcare costs are going up, No arguement from me on that. You also made an interesting statement that from my POV seems rather odd.

Take the federal government out of it.

OK, you and I are in complete agreement there but it also sadly ends there as it appears to me you've abandoned that principle. You do say things here and there that we agree and I'm with ya, but then you turn around and champion poltical candidates that are in reality doing the exact opposite of what you extoll in belief.

You say, take the Federal gov't out of it but here's the reality. Taking the Feds out would require a complete elimination of all federal healthcare programs including medicare, SCHIPS etc. On top of that you'd also have to eliminate the FDA and especially the drug oversight side of the FDA. There are many more areas (way to many to list) but you get the idea of what I'm suggesting and you know what, I totally agree that this is exactly what should happen. However, now you have the conditions in place for Diesel's nightmare scenario to come into play where the Fox doesn't guard the hen, he now owns it. Oh, am I all of a sudden against the Free Market? Oh no, I contend we never had one in the first place contary to popular American myth.

Free Market is a market where anyone can bring a service or product into play and the consumer decides how important that product or service is and it's value. What we've had over the last century is a market where gov't has decided what is worthy of public consumption based on a public policy plan and then regulated that product or service into the marketplace or out of the marketplace. Some products even make the marketplace by special legislative edict and thus a market is created and even subsidized until it's footing is assured. Energy is one such area for example and trains are another.

Sometimes tax policy itself drives the product as economists go before Congress and show the plus side gains in tax revs. outweigh the negatives. Tobacco was seen especially in the 60's having a link to cancer but Tobacco remained as the negatives of cancer were offset by the tax rev. positives to the federal treasury. As time went by the tobacco negatives built across the public strata and began to negatively impact the tax revs. and then new economists emerged to show over time, the health and time costs of tobacco usage and how the cost to gov't would be greater than the tax revs taken in. Now tobacco is not the favorite son it once was. Take you idea to Congress and if you can show them that they will gain more tax revs. for those porkbarrel projects, you've got a winner. How do you think the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska gained life? Some construction executive in Alaska who needed work sold the idea to Sen. Ted Stevens and then he took care of the rest until public overexposure killed it. What doesn't get killed that we never hear of?

Not drug related but oil is in the same boat. The reason we don't have national focus to rid ourselves of oil is tax revs. For example, take oil out of the main propulsion of cars and replace it with solar. Sounds great right? Wrong. Now how do you tax the sun to pay for road costs? Why the push towards hydrogen? Because it takes large scale production to produce and then large scale distribution to the end user. In that case, there is an exchange mechanism that the gov't can piggyback for the purpose of taxation. The old adage of follow the money!

For 100 years, the competing corp. health interests have controlled healthcare via the democrats and republicans in this country and trust me, contary to their public mutterings, they have it good. The ideas for the most part being floated for healthcare still have them in the catbird seat and here's where it gets even better. By law, whether it's Hillary's plan or Newt's (I've read both and Hillary was in bed with Newt on this in 05' and his is her plan basically) you are required to have insurance and to make sure you do comply, you either will if they determine by set formula that you can or if you can't, it will be federally subsidized. At this point no one is saying what happens if you refuse to comply.

Newt's plan for example requires everyone own a private health insurance policy from a competing insuranced company licensed to do business by the gov't. (local, state and maybe under some conditions federal) Newt's plan also allows for federal subsidation for the folks who can afford so they to can purchase a private insurance policy. Hillary's is the same but the folks who can afford will be sudsidized to be included in the federal gov't insurance. Either way, the gov't is telling you how to conduct your life and setting the manner in which you will do so, the only difference in all this is that in one plan the private insurance get all the marbles in the pot and in the other they will only get a large portion that what hey have now. Either way, they score a nice increase to the total revs and thus to their bottomline via their shareholders. And from the conservative viewpoint, how does Newt's plan get the gov't out of healthcare? Or for that fact, show me any republican who has a total proposal to do just that? Medicare and Medicaid will still exist, SCHIPS will still exist. Right? or am I wrong again! Show me, I'll listen.

As I said, from my POV I can go with the democrats and get the full blown social treatment so to speak or in beer drinking term, I get the Bud bottle with the red label. Or I can go the Republican route and get the social treatment only at the 50% level or again in beer terms, the Bud bottle with the blue label that sez "Light" meaning here not the full monty so to speak.

From my perspective, no matter which way I vote I'm still getting socialism (in a true sense it's fascism under the Mussolini model, (not the Hilter model) that is called corporatism by others, I call it what it really is) it's just the 4th estate has us believing it's to a much lesser degree. not so IMO. You guys on the so-called conservative side agrue about keeping gov't out but then go and vote and support people who do the exact opposite. I know, many point to the war on terror as being all important as sometimes you do have to make choices that when all things are equal, you normally would not make.

I'll assume we agree to some point or another that the gov't has screwed up welfare, has screwed up healthcare, has screwed up immigration, has screwed up education, has screwed up taxes, has screwed up having a balanced budget, has screwed up eliminating porkbarrel spending, has screwed up paying down the National Debt and has in fact increased it, has screwed up the post office OK being UPSers that's not fair to the gov't to throw that one out but the point is we all can list issue after issue domestically where the gov't has just blown it. And Bigtime too! Amazing in a lot of these both sides of the political isle will agree with one another too.

I guess what I'm asking is that when they continuously screw up and make things worse even when they propose legislation tey claim will make it better, we continue to trust them and give them our vote. The definiton of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

Maybe we really are stupid! Do you think this might be why the islamists don't want us over there telling them how to run things? It's funny but it's also worth giving some thought to as well.

 

[wkmac]

Here's an Op-ed discussing the difference between the Free Market and the economy in what we describe it as Wall Street. It is an op-ed and not a definitive and final analyst on the matter but it does give some good food for thought IMO.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north574.html

 

[av8torntn]

AV8,

Oh I agree that people want good healthcare and the simple fact is that there is a problem in our healthcare system. Healthcare costs are going up, No arguement from me on that. You also made an interesting statement that from my POV seems rather odd.



OK, you and I are in complete agreement there but it also sadly ends there as it appears to me you've abandoned that principle. You do say things here and there that we agree and I'm with ya, but then you turn around and champion political candidates that are in reality doing the exact opposite of what you extoll in belief.

You say, take the Federal gov't out of it but here's the reality. Taking the Feds out would require a complete elimination of all federal healthcare programs including medicare, SCHIPS etc. On top of that you'd also have to eliminate the FDA and especially the drug oversight side of the FDA. There are many more areas (way to many to list) but you get the idea of what I'm suggesting and you know what, I totally agree that this is exactly what should happen. However, now you have the conditions in place for Diesel's nightmare scenario to come into play where the Fox doesn't guard the hen, he now owns it. Oh, am I all of a sudden against the Free Market? Oh no, I contend we never had one in the first place contary to popular American myth.

Free Market is a market where anyone can bring a service or product into play and the consumer decides how important that product or service is and it's value. What we've had over the last century is a market where gov't has decided what is worthy of public consumption based on a public policy plan and then regulated that product or service into the marketplace or out of the marketplace. Some products even make the marketplace by special legislative edict and thus a market is created and even subsidized until it's footing is assured. Energy is one such area for example and trains are another.

Sometimes tax policy itself drives the product as economists go before Congress and show the plus side gains in tax revs. outweigh the negatives. Tobacco was seen especially in the 60's having a link to cancer but Tobacco remained as the negatives of cancer were offset by the tax rev. positives to the federal treasury. As time went by the tobacco negatives built across the public strata and began to negatively impact the tax revs. and then new economists emerged to show over time, the health and time costs of tobacco usage and how the cost to gov't would be greater than the tax revs taken in. Now tobacco is not the favorite son it once was. Take you idea to Congress and if you can show them that they will gain more tax revs. for those porkbarrel projects, you've got a winner. How do you think the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska gained life? Some construction executive in Alaska who needed work sold the idea to Sen. Ted Stevens and then he took care of the rest until public overexposure killed it. What doesn't get killed that we never hear of?

Not drug related but oil is in the same boat. The reason we don't have national focus to rid ourselves of oil is tax revs. For example, take oil out of the main propulsion of cars and replace it with solar. Sounds great right? Wrong. Now how do you tax the sun to pay for road costs? Why the push towards hydrogen? Because it takes large scale production to produce and then large scale distribution to the end user. In that case, there is an exchange mechanism that the gov't can piggyback for the purpose of taxation. The old adage of follow the money!

For 100 years, the competing corp. health interests have controlled healthcare via the democrats and republicans in this country and trust me, contary to their public mutterings, they have it good. The ideas for the most part being floated for healthcare still have them in the catbird seat and here's where it gets even better. By law, whether it's Hillary's plan or Newt's (I've read both and Hillary was in bed with Newt on this in 05' and his is her plan basically) you are required to have insurance and to make sure you do comply, you either will if they determine by set formula that you can or if you can't, it will be federally subsidized. At this point no one is saying what happens if you refuse to comply.

Newt's plan for example requires everyone own a private health insurance policy from a competing insuranced company licensed to do business by the gov't. (local, state and maybe under some conditions federal) Newt's plan also allows for federal subsidation for the folks who can afford so they to can purchase a private insurance policy. Hillary's is the same but the folks who can afford will be sudsidized to be included in the federal gov't insurance. Either way, the gov't is telling you how to conduct your life and setting the manner in which you will do so, the only difference in all this is that in one plan the private insurance get all the marbles in the pot and in the other they will only get a large portion that what hey have now. Either way, they score a nice increase to the total revs and thus to their bottomline via their shareholders. And from the conservative viewpoint, how does Newt's plan get the gov't out of healthcare? Or for that fact, show me any republican who has a total proposal to do just that? Medicare and Medicaid will still exist, SCHIPS will still exist. Right? or am I wrong again! Show me, I'll listen.

As I said, from my POV I can go with the democrats and get the full blown social treatment so to speak or in beer drinking term, I get the Bud bottle with the red label. Or I can go the Republican route and get the social treatment only at the 50% level or again in beer terms, the Bud bottle with the blue label that sez "Light" meaning here not the full monty so to speak.

From my perspective, no matter which way I vote I'm still getting socialism (in a true sense it's fascism under the Mussolini model, (not the Hilter model) that is called corporatism by others, I call it what it really is) it's just the 4th estate has us believing it's to a much lesser degree. not so IMO. You guys on the so-called conservative side agrue about keeping gov't out but then go and vote and support people who do the exact opposite. I know, many point to the war on terror as being all important as sometimes you do have to make choices that when all things are equal, you normally would not make.

I'll assume we agree to some point or another that the gov't has screwed up welfare, has screwed up healthcare, has screwed up immigration, has screwed up education, has screwed up taxes, has screwed up having a balanced budget, has screwed up eliminating porkbarrel spending, has screwed up paying down the National Debt and has in fact increased it, has screwed up the post office OK being UPSers that's not fair to the gov't to throw that one out but the point is we all can list issue after issue domestically where the gov't has just blown it. And Bigtime too! Amazing in a lot of these both sides of the political isle will agree with one another too.

I guess what I'm asking is that when they continuously screw up and make things worse even when they propose legislation tey claim will make it better, we continue to trust them and give them our vote. The definiton of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.

Maybe we really are stupid! Do you think this might be why the islamists don't want us over there telling them how to run things? It's funny but it's also worth giving some thought to as well.

What???? What politilcal candidate's health care "plan" have I championed? I really have no clue what this is about. I want no federal government health care. This would include medicare, but that is not what the Clinton mandatory health care insurance "plan" thread is about. I think it is a major invasion in my life for the federal government to tell me I have to have health care insurance. I do not bet against myself. I also do not think this is what our founders meant when they wanted a more perfect union. I also do not believe that our health care system is in a crisis mode.

I understand what a free market means but thank for trying to help me out. I still would prefer this. A free market will lower prices. A free market will force suppliers to become more efficient. The problem is when our government starts a social program it never ends it only grows. There are always unseen problems with government interference in the marketplace. Of course I understand we will not have a free market as long as people feel they need someone else to watch over them.

Anyway keep up the good fight. You are a killer bunny.

 

[diesel96]

You say, take the Federal gov't out of it but here's the reality. Taking the Feds out would require a complete elimination of all federal healthcare programs including medicare, SCHIPS etc. On top of that you'd also have to eliminate the FDA and especially the drug oversight side of the FDA. There are many more areas (way to many to list) but you get the idea of what I'm suggesting and you know what, I totally agree that this is exactly what should happen. However, now you have the conditions in place for Diesel's nightmare scenario to come into play where the Fox doesn't guard the hen, he now owns it. Oh, am I all of a sudden against the Free Market? Oh no, I contend we never had one in the first place contary to popular American myth.
Free Market is a market where anyone can bring a service or product into play and the consumer decides how important that product or service is and it's value. What we've had over the last century is a market where gov't has decided what is worthy of public consumption based on a public policy plan and then regulated that product or service into the marketplace or out of the marketplace. Some products even make the marketplace by special legislative edict and thus a market is created and even subsidized until it's footing is assured. Energy is one such area for example and trains are another.

You do your homework wkmac, I will grant you that. However....I will contend there was a era IMO in American History when we've had a lesser Gov't and a more radical free trade boom in the pre-American Revolution days and continuing thru the Civil War up until the mid to late 1920's pre FDR era, and look where that led us, the demand for slaves, workers and laborers lessoned and ignited the "great depression" and the eratication of the "middle class" resurfaced. (which has been a pattern thru out world history, which can be debated in a thread of it's own..."The eratication of the middle class")

It's mind boggling that some here profess there's nothing wrong with our healthcare system. Being comforted by a "free" solid Employer healthercare plan protecting and pocketing the costs from Medical, Dental, Eyesight, Pharmacueticals may have insulated some from the real world hardships of other hard working Americans not as lucky as us Union beneficeries.

 

[av8torntn]

It's mind boggling that some here profess there's nothing wrong with our healthcare system. Being comforted by a "free" solid Employer healthercare plan protecting and pocketing the costs from Medical, Dental, Eyesight, Pharmacueticals may have insulated some from the real world hardships of other hard working Americans not as lucky as us Union beneficeries.

It is so hard to to understand why you want to take away the right to choose from the American people. By the way my health insurance is not free. It is part of my compensation from the job I choose. I made the choice to make less money but I get a pension, insurance, and I like my job. Plus I have a certain degree of job security. Anyway for the poster who loves links. Where is the crisis?

 

[beatupbrown]

I am writing today in response to "Just Say No to Socialized Health Care in America," (CT, Oct. 9). This article was misleading, ignorant, and insulting to a great number of Americans. I would like to counter the author's article by commenting on its key claims.
Firstly, it is true that while the figure of uninsured Americans is 45 million, 17 million indeed do have households where the family members earn more than $50,000 a year. One may claim that these people simply do not want health care because if they did they would get it. Or perhaps they are lazy and don't think providing adequate coverage for themselves or for their families is worth the time it takes to sign up for a plan.
In reality, these people do want health care, yet, for a variety of reasons, they are unable to receive it. For many, health care plans deny them if they have certain identified "health risks" at the time of signing up. The health insurance company Excellus in N.Y. denied 16,621 claims primarily due to alleged pre-existing conditions. Additionally, many people simply cannot afford health care even if their companies offer plans.
While $50,000 may seem like a lot, for many families if the option is between the risk of a medical condition or the risk of dying from lack of food or freezing due to no heat, the family will take the immediate and current risk which in turn eats into their meager savings, leaving nothing for overpriced health care plans. Having $50,000 does not guarantee access to affordable health coverage. Figures from the Kaiser Family Foundation showed that premium costs have risen 78 percent in the last six years, to an annual cost of $12,106 per family.
An additional claim that was made was that millions of the uninsured are illegal immigrants. Over 80 percent of the uninsured are naturalized or native residents in this nation. The claim that college students go without simply because they "decide to take their chances" is as preposterous as it is insulting. I guess that as a college student the author has a poor grasp of medical risks and thus "logically" assumes all college students are the same. The college students I know without insurance have none because they cannot afford it, not because they are eternal optimists.
Additionally, there are millions of so called "under-insured" Americans who learn too late that their policies (the only ones they could afford) do not include costly, sometimes life saving, surgical procedures. Including the number of uninsured along with the "under-insured" results in millions more Americans without health coverage and the number of 45 million suddenly seems an underestimate.
Critics who claim the cost of universal health care is too great need only to look to a simple comparison. While the American system, which leaves millions under-insured or uninsured costs 15.3 percent of our GDP, the French system, which provides universal health care costs only 10.7 percent of their GDP.
Another frequent complaint is that the bureaucratic costs of universal health care are too great. To counter this, I say we should look at Medicare, which has overhead costs of about 1.5 percent while private insurance companies have overheads between 13 percent and 16 percent. While private insurance companies make 40 billion dollars in profit every year, it would only cost 14 billion more to cover the uninsured under a Medicare-type plan for a total cost of 54 billion. This would be relatively easy once we stop pouring money down the drain in Iraq (450 billion dollars and counting).
The author mocked the long lines and untimely wait that people in universal health care systems have to deal with to get treatment, yet numerous studies including one by the Commonwealth Fund found that "countries that cover everyone, including France, Belgium, Germany and Japan, report no issue with waits at all." Doesn't sound like the DMVs and airports cited as comparison in Tuesday's letter.
Another claim made by the author was that our health care system was the envy of the world, yet the World Health Organization ranks the United States 37th out of all the nations in our health care system performance although Americans spend more money than any other country to get this coverage. This means that unlike the author's claim, the health care system in America is NOT better than most other developed nations. In fact, a recent report by the New England Journal of Medicine found that many Americans are traveling overseas to nations such as India due to the high costs of medical fees within the United States for routine surgery.
Indeed, Peter Budetti, M.D., JF and chairman of the Department of Health Administration and Policy at the University of Oklahoma Health Science Center stated that "The need for American citizens to go abroad for care — and their willingness to do so — represents a crushing indictment of numerous myths about the U.S. health care system that have gained popular currency in recent years." Budetti also noted that "perhaps the emerging sight of Middle America traveling thousands of miles for medical care will spur new attention to the need for universal coverage with adequate benefits in this country."
While the author's statement that while working in a hospital in Northern Virginia is true — the uninsured usually receive emergency medical care — as a group, the uninsured are sicker, suffer more from chronic disease and rarely get rehabilitation after an injury or surgery.
As actual facts given by nonpartisan medical organizations and government agencies have shown, universal health care is not only affordable, it very likely will improve everyone's standard of health care compared to the misleading statements used in Tuesday's article. Additionally, while I have no statistics to support this, for me health care is a moral imperative and my Christian upbringing has taught me to judge society based on how we treat the least among us and our respect for the universal concept of human dignity.
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stor...cialized_health_care_is_necessary_for_america

 

[av8torntn]

How many of these 17 million have switched jobs and are waiting for their new coverage to kick in while they choose not to pay COBRA premiums? After reading your "opinion" on health care I still do not see why you want to take away more freedoms of Americans. I suppose if you think medicare is a model of efficiency you never really will understand how great we have it here.

 

[beatupbrown]

How many of these 17 million have switched jobs and are waiting for their new coverage to kick in while they choose not to pay COBRA premiums? After reading your "opinion" on health care I still do not see why you want to take away more freedoms of Americans. I suppose if you think medicare is a model of efficiency you never really will understand how great we have it here.

Yes medicare runs more efficient then privatate insurance. People are feed information from the media and take as the truth which is simply not true, and does not take the time to check out the facts.
Listen to Rush Limbaugh maybe and take it as gospel .

Another frequent complaint is that the bureaucratic costs of universal health care are too great. To counter this, I say we should look at Medicare, which has overhead costs of about 1.5 percent while private insurance companies have overheads between 13 percent and 16 percent.
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stor...cialized_health_care_is_necessary_for_america

 

[athena]

Does Canada have a big waterfall or is that New Jersey?

 

[Fighting4yourRights]

Does Canada have a big waterfall or is that New Jersey?

Not in New Jersey, silly billy. The waterfall is clearly located in North Dakota. It may be helpful to pull out a geographical map once in a while to study the landscape of this beautiful country.

 

[av8torntn]

Yes medicare runs more efficient then privatate insurance. People are feed information from the media and take as the truth which is simply not true, and does not take the time to check out the facts.
Listen to Rush Limbaugh maybe and take it as gospel .

Another frequent complaint is that the bureaucratic costs of universal health care are too great. To counter this, I say we should look at Medicare, which has overhead costs of about 1.5 percent while private insurance companies have overheads between 13 percent and 16 percent.
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/2007/10/10/column__socialized_health_care_is_necessary_for_americahttp://www.collegiatetimes.com/stor...cialized_health_care_is_necessary_for_america

You leave out alot in your numbers but that is typical. Aside from the higher rate of fraud I believe Medicare helps drive prices up. I know this will be to difficult for you to understand so I will not try. I do although find it odd that you start off by just wanting to force health insurance on people and now you want all out socialism. It is all to obvious that it is all about emotion. You say an article has all wrong numbers but you cut and paste another article with the same numbers. It is OK to use the same numbers to come to a different conclusion but which is it? Are the numbers wrong which would make your reply also wrong?


Anyway you would be glad to know that I ran a quick google search on individual health insurance. I find it odd that so many companies sell this product that you say so many people cannot get. I was thinking well maybe it is just an online scam. I then called my local State Farm agent. I asked if they sold individual health insurance they said they did indirectly and game me a number to call. I of course called and got several quotes. None were anywhere near the number you gave. The lowest one was 65$ a month and the most expensive one was $264 a month. For this much difference in price it would be wise for the person that was going to pay 12,000 a year to just move to my state. Your health care crisis is now solved and I did not need the federal government to force me into anything.

 

[brazenbrown]

It's a shame that so much time gets spent arguing with the libs who want to drag the country down by imposing socialized health care.

Sure healthcare is not perfect.

Sure healthcare is not for everyone.

Sure healthcare is a huge issue (especially if Hillary makes it one to try and get votes)

What I don't understand is why when people are faced with their most devastating health issues they come to the U.S. to get their care??

Sure our system could use some improvements.

But to say it needs government run healthcare is absurd!

If you really think that our healthcare is that jacked up what country would you go to when in a crisis?? Yeah, that's what I thought you would stay here to have that all important operation...

Prove the U.S. wrong by moving somewhere else where healthcare is better....Maybe Cuba or even the U.K...

I know I would!

 

[diesel96]

Is the current privatized Healthcare a true byproduct of the free market to the purist? Or are we really suffering from Corperate Socialsim.Being so paranoid of partial Gov't heathcare choice plan, but so willing to bend over and let Corperate Rover to take over for the almighty profit. How much freedom does the average Joe even get to choose his Insurance unless he has Ben Franklins falling out if his pocket.
The dominant form of collectivism is via Employment and clearly there are many people who want some form of Health care but can't afford it and don't recieve it. How can the market be made to serve them?
I believe that high costs and low quality plans are the result of lack of competition. Before you roll your eyes to the back of your head, listen up and stop professing there's nothing wrong with the system. Say the Dem's lose the election (unlikely, but just make believe) We now have a system where health care plans are selected by employers, rather than individuals. We should move to a system where individuals select from competing providers. Our employers don't pick our stock broker, our bank, or other service providers. Why should they pick our health care provider? Individuals (not employers) should get a substancial tax deduction for purchasing health care and a raise in salaries and the minimum wage. All individuals should be required to purchase health insurance (unless they can prove they have the resources to pay out of pocket). The state can subsidize low-income individuals and families, but they have to be able to use their subsidies in a competitive market.

 

[av8torntn]

We now have a system where health care plans are selected by employers, rather than individuals. We should move to a system where individuals select from competing providers. Our employers don't pick our stock broker, our bank, or other service providers. Why should they pick our health care provider?

This was a product of the wage controls. Health insurance was exempt which is why it is still not taxed as income. Glad to see you want to move away from your comfort of socialism just a little.

 

[av8torntn]

Yes medicare runs more efficient then privatate insurance. People are feed information from the media and take as the truth which is simply not true, and does not take the time to check out the facts.
Listen to Rush Limbaugh maybe and take it as gospel .

Another frequent complaint is that the bureaucratic costs of universal health care are too great. To counter this, I say we should look at Medicare, which has overhead costs of about 1.5 percent while private insurance companies have overheads between 13 percent and 16 percent.
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stor...cialized_health_care_is_necessary_for_america

Again it does not.

I think these two articles may be beyond where you are in your understanding of the markets, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

A quote from the first one.

The proliferation of mandated benefits has increased the cost of health insurance, disproportionately hurting employees who work for small businesses (which can't afford to self-insure and thereby avoid the mandates).

And a very good argument for getting rid of Medicare.

You could even adopt their plan and still have federal government control in your life since you love it so much.

Finally since I do not think you understand how free markets work.

 

[av8torntn]

Here is an article for you to consider. It gives you an idea that there could be a reason why health care costs what it does.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0692c.asp

And just in case you still think medicare is efficient in the market.

A quote.
A look at the data is instructive. The effect of tax exemption and the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid on rising medical costs from 1946 to now is clear. According to my estimates, the two together accounted for nearly 60 percent of the total increase in cost. Tax exemption alone accounted for one-third of the increase in cost; Medicare and Medicaid, one-quarter.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070219053505/http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3459466.html

I think most people can see your way of having the government interfere in the health care market does not work. Most of the countries you have put up as models for us to follow are trying to move away from socialized medicine yet somehow you want to move farther that way.

 

[brett636]

So much for our poor performing healthcare system.

i would be surprised if britain, Canada, or France can make this same claim.