Universal Healthcare - please explain

[kiwisongbird]

Please someone explain the pros and cons of universal health care - I really don't know what it entails - is it healthcare for all citizens?

Please help me understand better why some are so for it and some so against...

Thanks :)

[middletree]

I wish I had more time. Anyone who has taken Economics 101 should be against govt health care. Historically, any time the govt has taken control of something that had been a private sector industry, it does much less, for much more money. I wish I had time to give examples.

[Jesuslove]

I wish I had more time. Anyone who has taken Economics 101 should be against govt health care. Historically, any time the govt has taken control of something that had been a private sector industry, it does much less, for much more money. I wish I had time to give examples.

I disagree. I think universal healthcare, offering healthcare to every family is not only necessary, but it is a Christian concept. Our present system is failing us. Canadians pay far less for prescriptions than Americans. We need reform. We need to make healthcare affordable to families.

[WeaselInYerFoot]

I disagree. I think universal healthcare, offering healthcare to every family is not only necessary, but it is a Christian concept. Our present system is failing us. Canadians pay far less for prescriptions than Americans. We need reform. We need to make healthcare affordable to families.

It is a Christian concept that should be in the hands of the Christian, much like the Catholic Church used to have (and still does in many countries). It is NOT Christian to pass this job on to the government and make everyone pay for it. It should be one's choice to help the poor, otherwise you're obeying the government, not God.

That being said, we haven't done a very good job so far.

[Evanescence]

THIS Govt cannot be trusted to do ANYTHING with Universal Health care....

Between the corruption and incompetence and control tactics.....it'd be suicide.

Ya'll wanna see microchips in humans....go for Universal health care...

Word. :cool:

[kiwisongbird]

What I don't understand (coming from a country where health care is 'kind of' universal) is if you live in America and don't have insurance cos you can't afford to, where do you go to have your baby? where do you go when you're sick? how can you afford anything? is it just the people with money who can afford the care?

In New Zealand when you earn a certain amount, well under a certain amount, and that's calculated with regard to how many kids you have, then you can have a special card that halves your doctor's fee, they get that other half of the fee from the government... also your prescriptions are heaps cheaper - anti migraine medication costs around $40 for what would usually cost a couple of hundred... it's pretty difficult if you earn a couple of dollars over this amount though!!

[middletree]

I disagree.

It's not a matter of disagreeing on an opinion. The numbers don't lie. When a govt takes over an industry, the bang for the buck always goes down.

[Jesuslove]

It's not a matter of disagreeing on an opinion. The numbers don't lie. When a govt takes over an industry, the bang for the buck always goes down.

do you agree that our current system is broken? our government (especially the Bush Administration) is in bed with the pharmaceutical industry. Prescription drugs that cost pennies to make, are being sold for hundreds of dollars through the government programs. The present system fails us. We need reform.

On a sidenote, I'm sick of seeing medical ads on tv. Probably 1/3 of all tv commercials are related to medications. I wonder how much money would be saved if drug companies were banned from advertising, much like tobacco companies.

[Evanescence]

do you agree that our current system is broken? our government (especially the Bush Administration) is in bed with the pharmaceutical industry. Prescription drugs that cost pennies to make, are being sold for hundreds of dollars through the government programs. The present system fails us. We need reform.

On a sidenote, I'm sick of seeing medical ads on tv. Probably 1/3 of all tv commercials are related to medications. I wonder how much money would be saved if drug companies were banned from advertising, much like tobacco companies.

The pharma companies are VERY powerful.....and both Reps and Dems are in bed with them....so is the FDA.

Thats why when they tell you soemthing is safe...we should question it. The FDA will allow unsafe drugs to be released....if controlled by these lobbys...

The system is broken...no question...but the idea of the Govt making it all better? No way...I don't want them in my life anymore than they are now...

They cant be trusted.......

[middletree]

do you agree that our current system is broken?

Yes, it's in bad shape, but you don't address a bad situation with a bad solution.

our government (especially the Bush Administration) is in bed with the pharmaceutical industry.

Sheesh, do you have to put your anti-Bush stuff into every post? Libs have wanted govt health care since long before Bush was president. It has nothing to do with him. The worst part of health insurance costs comes from lawsuits, and the Left is the side keeping tort reform from stemming that tide.

Prescription drugs that cost pennies to make, are being sold for hundreds of dollars through the government programs.

You just proved that govt programs are bad. And you want to solve that by making all of health care a big govt program?

[Jesuslove]

You just proved that govt programs are bad. And you want to solve that by making all of health care a big govt program?

Our prescription programs are bad. We need reform. We keep debating back and forth. I have yet to see you come up with a solution to providing poor families with affordable healthcare. Let's say you are the President. You have millions of uninsured people. What would you do to ensure they are adequately protected? Isn't it our duty as Christians to care for our fellow man?

[Andi]

Our prescription programs are bad. We need reform. We keep debating back and forth. I have yet to see you come up with a solution to providing poor families with affordable healthcare. Let's say you are the President. You have millions of uninsured people. What would you do to ensure they are adequately protected? Isn't it our duty as Christians to care for our fellow man?

With this train of logic, it would make sense that YOU make sure you vote for a Christian. :confused:

[Jesuslove]

With this train of logic, it would make sense that YOU make sure you vote for a Christian. :confused:

I plan to.

[Jason]

What I don't understand (coming from a country where health care is 'kind of' universal) is if you live in America and don't have insurance cos you can't afford to, where do you go to have your baby? where do you go when you're sick? how can you afford anything? is it just the people with money who can afford the care?

What happens is the government steps in and the poor get ineffective care. For example, my wheelchair was taken in April for repairs. I found out yesterday that nothing has been done yet because they are still waiting for insurance authorization.

In New Zealand when you earn a certain amount, well under a certain amount, and that's calculated with regard to how many kids you have, then you can have a special card that halves your doctor's fee, they get that other half of the fee from the government... also your prescriptions are heaps cheaper - anti migraine medication costs around $40 for what would usually cost a couple of hundred... it's pretty difficult if you earn a couple of dollars over this amount though!!

And how high is the NZ income tax rate?

[Jason]

It is a Christian concept that should be in the hands of the Christian, much like the Catholic Church used to have (and still does in many countries). It is NOT Christian to pass this job on to the government and make everyone pay for it. It should be one's choice to help the poor, otherwise you're obeying the government, not God.

That being said, we haven't done a very good job so far.

Amen on all of the above.

[Jesuslove]

And how high is the NZ income tax rate?

To me, a spike in taxes to cover quality health insurance would be fair. If I had health insurance for life, I'd retire tomorrow at age 45. I can't afford to retire without health insurance though.

[Jesuslove]

Amen on all of the above.

With that being said Jason, what is standing in your way from seeking out alternative ways to pay for your care?

[middletree]

Our prescription programs are bad. We need reform. We keep debating back and forth. I have yet to see you come up with a solution to providing poor families with affordable healthcare.

I have a solution, but it's not a govt one. You only seem to be open to govt solutions.

My govt solution: tort reform. Stop allowing people to sue doctors because their baby has Down's, stop allowing multi-million dollar settlements for unsightly scars, and stop allowing large judgments for other frivolous things. As lawsuits have exponentially increased, insurance rates for doctors have increased, and every cost related to medical care has gone through the roof.

[middletree]

To me, a spike in taxes to cover quality health insurance would be fair. If I had health insurance for life, I'd retire tomorrow at age 45. I can't afford to retire without health insurance though.

Why should you be able to retire at govt expense at such a young age?

[Jesuslove]

I have a solution, but it's not a govt one. You only seem to be open to govt solutions.

My govt solution: tort reform. Stop allowing people to sue doctors because their baby has Down's, stop allowing multi-million dollar settlements for unsightly scars, and stop allowing large judgments for other frivolous things. As lawsuits have exponentially increased, insurance rates for doctors have increased, and every cost related to medical care has gone through the roof.

I don't disagree with you on tort reform to a degree. If a doctor is negligent, he needs to be held accountable. I agree..... too many Americans want to sue everytime something goes wrong.

That still doesn't answer the question about people who cannot afford health coverage. What do we do to ensure everyone who needs health coverage, can afford health coverage? Capping settlements would reduce costs, but I don't think it will make healthcare more affordable to the poor.

[Jesuslove]

Why should you be able to retire at govt expense at such a young age?

Well I can afford to. Even without universal healthcare, I can retire from the government in 10 years.

[Jason]

To me, a spike in taxes to cover quality health insurance would be fair.

Here, it's not quality health insurance.

With that being said Jason, what is standing in your way from seeking out alternative ways to pay for your care?

Who says I'm not?

[Jesuslove]

Here, it's not quality health insurance.


Well, taxpaying citizens need to stand up and make sure their voices are heard. Government healthcare doesn't automatically mean failure. We need to set high standards and have high expectations for our government. If universal healthcare can work in other countries, why can't it work here. Let's find the answer to that question and create a system that works.

[middletree]

Government healthcare doesn't automatically mean failure.
Govt anything is almost always a failure.

[Jesuslove]

Govt anything is almost always a failure.

Well I'm still looking for suggestions how we can insure the millions of uninsured Americans. It is a crisis in America that needs to be addressed.

I understand everyone's frustration with government. Hell, over the last 8 years, I have become completely frustrated wtih government and I didn't even vote for the man. But instead of looking at what doesn't work, why aren't we looking for ways to fix AND improve the system.

[middletree]

I gave you my choice. I disagree with you about the extent of the effect that tort reform would have. Since it's lawsuits that have driven healthcare prices up, it only makes sense that they could go down the same way.

[Jesuslove]

I gave you my choice. I disagree with you about the extent of the effect that tort reform would have. Since it's lawsuits that have driven healthcare prices up, it only makes sense that they could go down the same way.

even if prices came down though, it's still not getting insurance coverage for the poor.

[middletree]

even if prices came down though, it's still not getting insurance coverage for the poor.

No, it's making it affordable. There is no entitlement to health care coverage, nor should there be.

[Jesuslove]

No, it's making it affordable. There is no entitlement to health care coverage, nor should there be.

Do you think that Medicare should be provided to seniors without outside health coverage?

[Jason]

Do you think that Medicare should be provided to seniors without outside health coverage?

Read all of his posts. You already know his answer.

[Jesuslove]

No, it's making it affordable. There is no entitlement to health care coverage, nor should there be.

I guess under your program, Jason would not have health insurance.

[middletree]

I guess under your program, Jason would not have health insurance.

Don't put words in my mouth. Keyboard. Whatever. In my perfect world, Jason would have insurance provided, but not from the govt.

[Jason]

Don't put words in my mouth. Keyboard. Whatever. In my perfect world, Jason would have insurance provided, but not from the govt.

From Church?

[Jesuslove]

From Church?

Yes, please provide details. I'm riveted.

[kiwisongbird]

What happens is the government steps in and the poor get ineffective care. For example, my wheelchair was taken in April for repairs. I found out yesterday that nothing has been done yet because they are still waiting for insurance authorization.



And how high is the NZ income tax rate?

I think it's high - i guess the church really needs to stop spending money on fancy buildings and stuff and step into this situation in a greater way - that's the problem in NZ is that the government has taken over the job of the church - it's kinda scary really...

[middletree]

Yes, please provide details. I'm riveted.

I don't need your sarcasm. I don't have a perfect plan, but I refuse to endorse a crappy plan, which will only make things worse. But you'd rather look down your nose at people who don't think like you, so once again, I find myself wondering why I even dared to offer an opinion in this thread. Go ahead. You can have the conversation to yourself and fellow lefties. Knock yourself out. It's all yours.

[Greyshades]

I love it.


**Choosing the "shut up and watch the circus" path.**

[kiwisongbird]

Why should Jesus have to shed His blood to give us eternal life?

Um, sorry that was rather random... :) but kinda the same kinda thing wasn't it???

Aww, maybe not! :)

[phil_ur_friend]

The sky is definitely falling...

I will enjoy looking back on this,
after my current body has been made new of course...

Phil, your "Homesick" friend

;)

[Jesuslove]

I don't need your sarcasm. I don't have a perfect plan, but I refuse to endorse a crappy plan, which will only make things worse. But you'd rather look down your nose at people who don't think like you, so once again, I find myself wondering why I even dared to offer an opinion in this thread. Go ahead. You can have the conversation to yourself and fellow lefties. Knock yourself out. It's all yours.

Peace, my friend. No need to get personal. Everytime we get into a debate, you want to take it to a personal level with me. Nobody said you had the perfect plan. No one said I knew all the answers. I certainly don't look down my nose at anyone. We both have something in common. We both want our broken healthcare system fixed. We differ on how we think it would be best accomplished. A spirited debate is good. No need to get personal. Peace.

[Debbie]

I disagree. I think universal healthcare, offering healthcare to every family is not only necessary, but it is a Christian concept. Our present system is failing us. Canadians pay far less for prescriptions than Americans. We need reform. We need to make healthcare affordable to families.


Perhaps it should only be for those whom otherwise do not have benefits. I realize affordability for some is an issue. There is healthcare available for everyone, whether it is a current goverment program or other, such as;
Medicare
Medicaid
Healthy Children Plan
Group Health Insurance
Individual Health Insurance

Coverage not limited to just Medical care, but dental and vision as well.

Not to mention tons of supplemental plans available. Why should the majority be forced into Universal Healthcare when the minority CHOOSE not to pay for insurance?

Also, if you are working, you have to take the group health insurance offered by your company unless you provide proof that you have other coverage. It is not an option to not have insurance unless you are not working. I am not sure if this only applies to the state of Florida or if it is a Federal Regulation.

[Debbie]

Our prescription programs are bad.

I agree with you on this point. However, it does not apply to everyone. I see where there are many companies who still offer low co-payments for prescription medication.

What I don't like is the prescription drug carrier dictating which drug you will take instead of the one written on the prescription by your doctor. Offering alternatives is okay. But let me decide if I'll take the higher co-pay (which is another topic). The price of prescription medication is rediculous. However, without knowing exactly the cost to produce and the margin of profit, I cannot say.

Another thing that may be an impact is perhaps we are paying for others prescription drugs already. Many drug companies offer free medication to the poor and to those who otherwise cannot afford a high dollar maintainence drug. Are we paying for those or are the companies taking these generous freebies as write off's to their otherwise extremely high charges?


Isn't it our duty as Christians to care for our fellow man?

Within our limits, yes. Can we over rule goverment?

My church has two medical clinics that offer medical care and free medication. One clinic is north of the church the other is south of the church. There are only certain days of the week that the clinics operate and are staffed by volunteers. So, when I distribute my offerings, I can rest in knowing that our money is being well spent in outreach.

[elby65]

For the last 26 years of my life, I have worked as an administrator in the healthcare industry here in the US. So please believe me that I do know what I am saying here.

One of the reasons for the massive increases in the cost of health care that we have seen was the decision, made by OUR government, way back in 1982, to require that doctor's offices keep certain types of records and to provide their services in a particular manner. Prior to 1982, doctors would provide all kinds of services in the office for their patients, or even send the patient to the radiology department at the hospital or to the lab for lab work, and the patient would only get one bill from the doctor's office for all the services done. The lab and radiology offices would bill the doctor. The doctor would pay the ancillary provider, and would bill the patient or their insurance company for all the charges. The government regulations required the provider (lab, radiology office, etc) who actually performed the work to bill for it. The result of this edict was that ancillary providers had to hire more staff to do the work. This increased the cost of having the work done. As an example, reading a pap smear cost $5.00 in 1982. Within 3 years, the cost of this test increased to $8.00. At the same time (January 1985), Medicare instituted the infamous "Medicare Fee Schedule", determining how much they would pay providers for performing the service. They calculated the fee schedule which went into effect in January 1985 at 65% of the amount the provider billed in 1982. So, now it costs $8.00 to read the pap smear, but the government is only going to pay $3.25 for the service. That means that the provider of the service must find some way to decrease the cost of providing the service. The only way to do that is to provide do many more of them, and do them faster (and very possibly less accurately). This action put many smaller, free standing labs and radiology offices out of business. What used to be done by small independent labs now had to be done by hospitals, who could "cost share" more effectively, or by large conglomerate labs that already had in place the ability to process more work in less time. LabCorp, which was a regional laboratory in the south, became nationwide by 1990. Quest was the same way, except they began on the east coast. Hospitals began to band together, again for cost-sharing purposes, and organizations such as Kaiser Permanente and Hosptal Corporation of America (HCA) began popping up on the healthcare maps. At the very same time, costs began increasing for insurance companies, because they were having to process claims from ancillary providers as well, rather than just from hospitals and from the doctor's offices. The insurance carriers also began banding together, because the more health care costs increased, the more expensive insurance processing costs were, and they had to band together to avoid the losses. One of the very first mergers was between Metropolitan and Travelers, and it was called MetraHealth. It later merged with still other insurance companies and became United Healthcare. How many of you know that insurance company? And that is just one example. All this increase of cost because of government edicts.

Now we get into the 90's. In 1996, a bill was passed which put into effect a whole bunch of laws called HIPPA, the Healthcare Information Portability and Privacy Act. It has many components, some of which are very good, and others of which are very bad. Prior to 1996, if you had health insurance through your employer, and your employer happened to change insurance companies, the new insurer could impose a pre-existing condition waiver on you, and deny payment for any condition you had for a period of up to two years. My husband and I got burned by that. We had a daughter born Feb 9, 1988. She was born about 10 weeks early, and I was septic with a Strep infection at the time of delivery, so she was not only premie, but sick. She lived for 20 days before she died. My husband's employer changed insurance companies on Nov 1, 1987. The new carried denied payment for ALL of Emily's bills, because she was conceived PRIOR to the effective date of the insruance plan. We were left with $180,000 of neonatal ICU bills, that we had no way of paying. Because of HIPPA, insurance companies can no longer do this. And, even if you change insurance carriers, if you had coverage before, they must consider "creditable coverage". If your employer changes coverage, there is NO pre-existing condition waithing period. But if you change employers, and have a "breach" in coverage, they can penalize you only for the period of time you had no coverage. For example, I changed jobs last year. My first carrier covered me for 8 months of last year. Although my new insurance plan did not go into effect until January 1 of this year, they have to consider that I was insured for 8 months, so the most they could claim no coverage for pre-existing conditions was 4 months. On May 1, all my pre-existing conditions were again fully covered. So, this part of HIPPA is good. But it comes with a price. Because they have to cover pre-existing conditions, the cost of insurance has gone up. Our premiums are much higher than before HIPPA. Another aspect of HIPPA is the privacy provisions. Your healthcare provider must ask for your permission before providing information to others, with a few exceptions which I won't go into. The downside to this is that, in an emergency situation, a different provider would not be able to access your medical information, and if you have chronic, long-term problems, you could die while waiting. As an example, my mother-in-law takes anticoagulants because she has stents in her heart. She had a stroke, and being unable to communicate this to the emergency staff, they gave her more anticoagulants. She nearly bled to death, because they did not know. What they did was right, but they did not have access to the information they needed, because of HIPPA. This has changed the actions of emergency care all over the country. Another problem is trying to get needed non-emergent information. I currently work for a billing company that bills for nursing homes. When I call a doctor's office to get diagnosis information on a patient who has had lab work done, I frequently run up against people who try to tell me they can't give me that information because of HIPPA. So now, you add the third major problem with the healthcare system in this country. In addition to two government regulations which have complicated the living daylights out of providing healthcare at a reasonable cost to consumers, you have LAWYERS coming out of the woodwork, eager to file malpractice suits against doctors, for only one reason. Prior to 1980, at least in Texas, neither doctors nor lawyers were allowed to adveritise as they do now. For that matter, neither were pharmaceutical companies. But they advertise now. And the result of that advertisement is that many lawyers, who had never even thought about filing a lawsuit against a healthcare provider, are doing so now because many healthcare providers will offer a settlement with the mere threat of a lawsuit, because if a lawsuit is FILED, there are stiff repercussions for the provider. The cost of malpractice insurance is ridiculous. A family care physician who does no labs or surgery must still pay over $15,000 a year for malpractice insurance in Texas. If they have had cases filed against them, the cost is much higher. A doctor I used to work for was paying over 100 grand a year for his malpractice insurance. Why? Because he worked in trauma, and trauma surgeons have the highest rate of malpractice cases filed against them. He only had one case that ever went to court, but had enough other cases initiated against him that his malpractice rate was unbelievable. The cost of malpractice insurance can be more than the cost of the office, more than payroll, more than continuing education, more than any other cost. And it is no different for the hospitals.

So, what is the point of all this? It was the government mandates which started this escalating cost of healthcare. To expect the government to fix the problem they started is simply NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. If you think the Canadian system of healthcare is so great, ask yourself this. If you were not healthy, would you want to have in place a system that makes you wait for months to see a specialist? I have a friend who moved to Canada, who has been waiting for 6 months already to see a neurologist. She has diabetes, and diabetic neuropathy. She has yet to see the neurologist. She may lose her legs, because she can't get in to see the only specialist who may be able to save them for her. I don't want any part of a healthcare system that works like that.

Yes, the system here in the US isn't the best. Universal healthcare would be nice. It would even be do-able, without a tax increase, if our government would quit spending our tax dollars on things unrelated to health, education, welfare and defense. Less than 50% of the annual budget for our government goes directly to thses things. If we quit spending the other 50% on useless things, than we could have the things we really need. But unfortunately, that isn't the way that government works.

[rossid]

As probably one of only two folks in the health insurance industry I'll perhaps come back with my two cents...

[MerlinTX]

No, actually, there are more than two.

Elby gives a fascinating look at the effects of legislation on the industry, but I don't think the government deserves all of the blame. To be sure, they have clear responsibility for the state of the profession of physician in this country. But there are several more factors at work.

Go back in time prior to 1980. The insurance companies were already digging themselves a hole they were never going to live down. First dollar healthcare was the rule and the consequences of the competition wars will forever change the landscape in this country. First dollar care means 100% coverage at some point, presumably after some deductable, but in the 70s, this deductable was the area of competition. Unfortunately for these companies, we were on the cusp of a technological explosion in the medical industry.

I know it is hard to imagine doctors who could diagnose anything without a CT scan, but they didn't really become omnipresent until around 1990 and were too slow to scan every belly ache until the last 5 years. But remember that every area of medicine has been subject to this technoligic explosion. Laparoscopic surgery has an incredible journey to talk about, but I'll save that for another time. Let's stay focused on first dollar care.

Once you reached your deductable, you had absolutely no disincentive to consuming healthcare. If the doctor wanted to order a test, fine, then. It was no more money from your pocket. This attitude was forminative of the opinion that healthcare is an entitlement. Worse, the best possible healthcare on the planet regardless of age or likelihood of success or survival was now a right of the people. Forget for just a moment about those without insurance; those with insurance were recreating our expectations in a very distructive manner. And the doctors just led them right along to this.

So, today, we have 80+ year old persons starting on hemodialysis. We have abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs on 75 year olds who have already had coronary bypass or valve replacements. We have cancer treatments for 60 year olds with stage 4 recurrent cancers, even after catastrophic strokes that leave them physically and mentally incapacitated. None of this makes any sense. God means for these shells we call bodies to wear out and release our souls. We have fought this to the point that persons who have no quality of life and cannot truly be called living are consuming huge proportions of our healthcare dollars. The percent of healthcare dollars consumed in the last two years of life is staggering. This is immoral. This is not a Christian behavior.

Before anyone jumps on me and says the word "euthanasia," that is not what I said. Our bodies are meant to die. They stop being able to contain our soul and the soul breaks free. We are interrupting this process to rediculous and indefensible degrees. This costs the rest of us far too much money and resources that could be better spent.

I want to go in another direction for a moment. Consider the impact of the finances of being a physician for a moment. There was a time when physicians were wealthy and respected members of the community. They delivered their care with compassion and developed relationships with their patients. When the government started squeezing the payments in 1985, they didn't just do it once. The cost of living doubles roughly every twenty years. But the reimbursement rates for physicians has decreased to less than 40% of pre-1985 dollars. When you add the fact that the cost of living has doubled, the real earning power of physicians is less than 20% of the physician in 1980.

But before I ask you to care about your physicians, after all, why should you, they are all rich aren't they...? Let's talk instead about training. The cost of a medical education has skyrocketed. $200,000 of debt at the end of residency is the rule rather than the exception. Physicians do not finish school until their early 30s. They have lost 15 or so years of earning to their age cohort. But there is no light at the end of the tunnel. They will not make enough money to pay back those bills for often more than a decade. And it gets worse.

And about that training: prior to the prominent death of a NY Post editor's daughter in a NYC hospital, residents worked over 100 hours a week routinely, surgical residents over 120 hours a week. After the Bell commission in NY and the changes in the RRC (Residency Review Committee), a limit was imposed of only 80 hours a week, and it was not negociable. Your physician has less experience that he used to have when he finishes training. Surgeons have a third less experience!

Ask your physician if their children are going into medicine. This used to be a profession dominated by nepotism. Now, this is the exception, not the rule. Physicians don't want their children to be physicians. Even immigrant physicians discourage their children from entering this field.

The crisis is in all areas of the industry. The physicians are growing in shorter supply. The hospitals are stuck with indigent care. EMTALA has prevented dumping of indigent patients on county hospitals, therefore the mark up on the insured patient for their care is staggering. The insurance companies are allowed to decide who and for what they will cover people and always, but always, they take their 30% cut right off the top to pay themselves. The hospitals and physicians get holding the bag. They provide services and have no idea whether they will be reimburesed. Drug companies have been threatened with a decrease in the patent protection on their medications and have become more aggresive in their marketing efforts to push their medicines before the drugs are lost to the generic markets. Meanwhile, quality control of generics is nearly nonexistent. Lawyers continue to pray on physicians. Malpractice insurance soars. The public idea of negligence is a failure to defy God's will in many instances. And the Government wants to fix this mess?!

But it gets worse. Hospitals are creating ways to employ physicians, a circumstance that is supposedly illegal. They want to control phsician behavior in ordering tests and supplying healthcare by being the employer of the physicians. Clearly this places the physician, already at odds with their patients due to managed care, farther still from the ideals of their Hippocratic Oath. What happened to the government here, or does the government actually desire this event?

In summary, we all share in the blame. You will notice that I have not accounted for the indigent. Universal care means this and only this: there can not be thinking or innovation in healthcare. That cannot be regulated or controlled. There is no place for the physician as we know him. Hospitals and insurance companies will merge. This was tried in the past, but it was just too soon. The time has come. Be careful of what you ask, for you will surely receive it.

I pray that there will be a physician in my dotage who is compassionate and understanding, a person who believes as I do that Jesus is waiting for me to join him, a person who will care for me, ease my pain and comfort my family as I pass on to Jesus. This person is now a myth. God help us all.

[rossid]

I won't hit all of the quotes but at least some of them...


You are not refused care in the U.S. You can have that baby. You would also have access to well child care (immunizations, etc.) through community programs. Now this is not ideal as there needs to be care for those that truly have no access or cannot afford care. Did anyone point out the drain, I have no idea the amount, for illegal aliens that use our health care system for free? Let me back up and talk about the drain of fraud: medical suppliers recently were revealed to have used id numbers of id numbers to get tens of millions of dollars - http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/other/1215592388198170.xml&coll=2

I disagree. I think universal healthcare, offering healthcare to every family is not only necessary, but it is a Christian concept. Our present system is failing us. Canadians pay far less for prescriptions than Americans. We need reform. We need to make healthcare affordable to families.I don't think you mean 'offer' because that sure sounds like the MCain plan.

To me, a spike in taxes to cover quality health insurance would be fair. If I had health insurance for life, I'd retire tomorrow at age 45. I can't afford to retire without health insurance though.Please define 'spike' because from the perspective of a middle class(?) family of six I don't want one.

I have a solution, but it's not a govt one. You only seem to be open to govt solutions.

My govt solution: tort reform. Stop allowing people to sue doctors because their baby has Down's, stop allowing multi-million dollar settlements for unsightly scars, and stop allowing large judgments for other frivolous things. As lawsuits have exponentially increased, insurance rates for doctors have increased, and every cost related to medical care has gone through the roof.Agreed.

Merlin hit something too which I'll take in another direction.

Health care was for catastrophic illness. It needs to get back to catastrophic coverage. Right? Catastrophic financial distress from medical illness bankrupts lots of folks and we should be able to agree on that. But now my wife has union coverage, even without being in the public school union, that costs her nothing, and she only pays $10 at the doctor. Health care is seen as a right, and health insurance provides the means, with this week some teens saying they would not lose weight because they can get surgery later in life.

Really? Do they know the prior authorization guidelines? A couple of years supervised by a doctor, after trying exercise, diet, etc? What if their employer excludes surgery for morbid obesity?

Cut the oil company's profits. Well then cut health insurance profits. Cut WalMart profits. Thankfully I work for a mutual insurance company. We are not publicly traded and look to make ten or fifteen percent profit for our shareholders, and yes those EVIL AND GREEDY presidents of our companies (wink wink), because we are owned by our policyholders. We look for zero percent margin.

Some states, New Jersey, and now mine, have made a good law that dependents can stay on their parent's plan after high school without being a student until into their twenties. Kids are not an actuarial health risk so that is a no brainer. Hopefully after continuing coverage, these young adults will value health insurance, no longer think themselves invincible, and enroll in the coverage when they get a job.

I've danced around with my opinion as usual...