It seems like most of the debate is around either sticking to the situation we have now or having a universal single payer system with no private health care. I don't think if the US does adopt a single payer system means that private health care will be done away with. Many countries that have a single payer system also still have private health care and if you have unusual problems or want better care you can still go private health care. Right now one of the biggest problems we have with our system is that the costs mean that we have very little preventive care and with even a limited level of basic universally available health care a lot of costs could be contained through prevention. Since hospitals and doctors are obligated to treat people who are dying if we could address conditions before they got to the emergency room we would avoid the greater costs of goign to the ER. The idea that if the US adopts a universal health care system along the lines of Canada and the the UK will destroy the profit motive to develop new drugs and treatments seems a stretch when there still will be a lot of money made to market drugs both to a universal health care and ongoing private health care. I don't want to dismiss the concerns regarding single payer systems but I think that we could develop a system that addresses the huge problems we have now with the current situation while still having options for different levels of care. The way I would imagine a US single payer system would be one where everyone has access to a basic US health care program. This program would be relatively spartan with a heavy emphasis on basic and preventive care. On top of that though people could still have extra health insurance so they could get a higher level of care. This way you would make sure that everyone is covered but still have competiton for better level of care.
Wow. Sorry I'm coming into this so late. I work with health insurance. I've dealt with it off and on for 5 years. Here is my take: I really wish there were a better way to work this, but there isn't. Private health care is still far superior to Government control. Say what you like about Canada and Europe, but the U.S. has far more breakthroughs and advances in healthcare due to the privatization and the ability to profit from it. Seriously people, do you really want a Government employee as your doctor? Didn't think so. Three things that warped our current healthcare system: First, during WWII, there was a salary freeze on companies so that they couldn't get all the current workers and such to switch over to them, so there wouldn't be unfair business practices. But the loophole was benefits, so companies started offering free healthcare to make the transfer more enticing. Other companies had to follow suit to remain competitive. So that is where people with jobs started expecting health insurance with their jobs. Second, the baby boom generation is finally getting old and sick. This is leading to massively higher costs for health insurance companies. The profit-grab idea by Michael Moore simply doesn't hold water. There are far too many insurance companies out there that would undercut them if it was all about gouging. An insurance company (all insurance companies) work on averages. If an average payout goes up, then prices increase the following year, and vice-versa. If you pay for individual ins., look around every year. Third, advertising. Ironically, it all started with breast implant advertising. Nowadays, you can't go through a TV break without seeing them. Again, the baby boomers are to blame. They are very used to getting everything for free, so they take and take and take these days. These are paid by insurance companies, so again, the cost of payouts per year is going up, so higher insurance rates. It is the main reason a lot of companies these days are stopping health insurance provisions, altogether. The solution? Unless you are fine with all the advances in medical science, there isn't a viable solution. We should all want the best doctors and researchers out there, and the only way that is obtained is in the private sector, period. BUT I tell all my friends this: If you are healthy, switch to individual medical rather than group. It has a portability factor in it that Group health doesn't have, which is why people get pissed off. Get your employer to reimburse. If they can't, it is really up to you. If you are unhealthy, or think something is wrong, stick with group, or find an employer that has group. That way you are covered. If you have individual, check with other companies every year. Health insurance is transferable, and there is no need to pay $200 when you can pay $100. I also recommend going on Canada's drug program. It is cheaper than ours, and there aren't any regulations against it yet. I could talk about this a lot more, but my fingers are tired.
i have government employees defending my country. government employees doing my mail. government employees teaching my children and regulating my profession. who the hell cares who writes the check?
That's simply not true and that's partly what the movie is about. Besides, it's places like the NIH and universities with government grants that produce a ton of this research and then the private sector swoops in to profit from it. Our system isn't working and it's time for something different.
No, it sadly is true. For example, if I know I can make millions off of an idea, I try my damndest to see if it can work. If I make a salary regardless, what the hell do I care? There are definitely some people who will advance medicine for the greater good, but you also want the ones out there who simply want to make money. The fact that our medical advances far exceed any other country substantiates this.
I work in this industry. What the hell are you talking about? Typical D&D response. You do know the definition of "r****d", don't you? I'll help you out. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/r****d
Um, no it's not true. Government institutions and grants predominate medical research. If it were not for government institutions like NIH, FDA, CDC, and government money to universities we'd be even more screwed than we are already.
Excuse me? You're actually talking about government grants? I give up. You are far too gone. Here's a clue: Look into how and why insurance got started. It is, and should never be a government role, for the reason it was brought into being, alone. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Show me a person b****ing about government provided health insurance, and I'll show you the exact same person b****ing about FEMA.
the notion that just because doctors are paid through the government institutions instead of private insurance lowers the quality is absurd. that would only be true if we significantly reduced salary enough while not ensuring enough other incentives to make that reduction in salary acceptable. no one is saying you go down a suicide road of reducing salary enough to not have enough elite professionals. pray tell why a government employee is necessarily not competent? do you think the armed services are incompetent? what about doctors at ben taub? do you think our teachers are necessarily incompetent? do you think a professor at UT or A&M is? do you think your mailmen is incompetent? give me a freaking break. we don't live in the 20s. we live in a government that has a 2.6 trillion dollar budget which will reach the 3 trillion mark by the end of the decade. the government does a lot of things exceptionally well. that is from 2002. i'd imagine its nearing 50% by today for public funding. please explain to me why the quality of our doctors would necessarily decrease dramatically if they were recompensed by the government instead of private companies. by the way whenever you want to look up words try m-w.com. then you can seem all adult and intellectual.
the reason people b**** about fema isn't because we dont want fema. its because your administration put its cronies in charge instead of competent people.
OK, and yet you want gov't provided insurance. "Cronies" do change, my friend. As I said you can't have your cake and eat it too. I'm actually in favor of Bush's new plan to give families up to a $15,000 tax credit to pay for their health insurance.
and congress should do its job and not allow cronies to be in power. social security has eradicated poverty in the old. our highway system has been great. our defense is second to none even if rummy and cheney do their best to ruin it. our colleges which are significantly funded by the government are the best by far. its not a problem of big or small government. its a question of competent government. and if we have leaders in power who are not competent, we shouldn't elect them and if we make the mistake we should impeach them.
Wow. Blanket political statements are the reason everything is failing. Quite frankly, you are a moron, as is everyone with a political "side" to this. We need healthcare. I'd love to be able to walk out of my house and know I was covered. SS did that for a hair of time. According to the "government" SS close to Vietnam was to the level that nobody would ever be able to spend it all. Guess what. We did. On my above comments. And idiot man, next time you call me out? bring some proof. I'll bring plenty, myself. Or perhaps you should just shut up. I came to this argument as a rational person. You haven't. Bring proof at the next time, or be a child. I could care less.
Universal health care should be a public service. The HMO's are trying to do there best for their shareholders which is make money while the point of healthcare is to help people. These principles oppose each and hence the reason for government health care. After hearing how the insurance companies try to screw people out of benefits there is no way to defend HMO's. They have been doing this for years and get away with it using lawyers and lobbyists.
