>> ^xxovercastxx:
That's not actually legal in the US. If you need treatment, a procedure, surgery or whatever, then the hospital cannot turn you away whether you can pay or not. Don't believe everything you hear on CSPAN.


Sure, they'll give you the surgery, if you survive the delays in getting around to it. And you're responsible for a bill that you have absolutely no way to pay. Then guess what, you get to declare bankruptcy.

And that's not even beginning to ask -why- we want the hospital to be supplying medical care that -could- have been handled for a tenth the cost by a GP at his office. But the GP won't see anyone who doesn't have either insurance or cash...and if he does, the pharmacy sure as hell isn't going to give you your meds unless you can pay.

So we get tens of thousands of people dying each year because they don't have insurance and can't afford care. But that's okay, because hospitals are required to treat them.

Every other industrialized country in the world can do it...but the richest one is too stupid or too incompetent to provide even minimal health care to all its citizens. It blows my mind that people can be so pessimistic about our country.

Torturing innocent people to death is an exaggeration? As in, we didn't do it?

I can find no credible source documenting the U.S. military 'torturing people to death'. Rhetoric such as 'murdering innocent people', 'going to war over false pretenses', 'sycophantic neocon ideas', 'purposefully plunging the economy'... These are the biased terms of left wing blogs. Speaking out against the Iraq War, or Bush, or whatever doesn't make you a kook. The WAY you speak out against them is what makes a kook like Olbermann.

That's why I propose we just waterboard conservatives until they confess to secretly being concerned about the well being of people who aren't themselves.

A fruitless endeavor, because conservatives are by natural proclivity concerned about others. They'd 'admit' it with a smile, and prove it with actions. The liberal approach to addressing the needs of others is to hand out a stringy, stinky government fish once a month. The conservative approach to helping the needy is to encourage them to create a fishing concern so they can make millions of dollars selling fish after they feed themselves like kings.

You are obviously OBVIOUSLY biased towards the other side of the isle

I am a strict fiscal conservative with strong constitutional constructionist leanings and a decidedly libertarian philosophy. Freedom is where I plant my flag. You can know in advance very clearly where I stand on any issue based on my guiding political philosophies of limited government power, and increased human freedom. I am not guided by 'party' politics. I'm guided by over-arching principles. Show me a liberal who fights for the consitution as it was written, fiscal responsibility, and personal freedom and I vote for them. But since the progressive liberal movement is decidedly anti-choice, anti-freedom, anti-fiscal responsibility, and anti-consitution they frequently get the stinkeye.

We need better health care. At least in the hands of the government it can be held somewhat accountable.

It is comments like this that cause me to - as you put it - 'shout'. If you really believe what you just said then I don't know what to say. You have the evidence of DECADES of solid, inarguable proof that the government being in charge of medical issues is never held accountable for tremendous waste, mismanagement, and outright misappropriation & graft. How anyone can look at programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security and still think that putting government in charge of such matters is a good idea is beyond me. The proper solution is more freedom - not less. Medical care has been a government mis-managed fiasco in the US ever since Ted Kennedy's stupid HMO bill screwed up the relationship between buyers and providers.

" History has proven that to be a blatant falsehood. Giving money to government programs does not reduce poverty, help the poor, or in any way improve the issues in society."

What history books are you reading Winstonfield? Never in the entire history of civilization has a "Libertarian fiscal conservative" government ever succeeded in creating a stable social environment. Not once! Why? Because it flies in the face of human nature. The world is not so super simple that we can teach everyone to be rugged individualists and then we will not need government at all. Before it will even have a chance to work you need an even playing field, and that does not exist and probably never will exist, thanks to human nature again.

Conservative thinkers know this, which is why pure conservatism = dictatorship. If you don't believe me, turn off the talk radio and crack open a book. Read the philosophers that inspire conservatism, like Plato and his "Philosopher King" or John Burke's defense of royal fiat.

Conservatism does not create a paradise like Galt's Gulch, it leads to places like Haiti, and Zimbabwe, and Somalia. "Liberalism" leads to high standards of living, like Denmark, Sweden, Finland and the fast recovery of Germany. These countries are technologically more advanced, better educated, have higher average incomes, better medical care, and longer life spans than us Americans. Yet they are (falsely) labeled "socialist" and are considered places we should not follow as examples.

Think for yourself!

I never said statistics don't matter, social liberals have to realize that there is such a thing as "statistical sleight of hand", you shouldn't immediately trust numbers coming from the mouth of a politician or the bureaucrats he's quoting. The low Medicare overhead myth is a clear example of that:

- The overhead percentage is the administrative cost compared to total costs, so a lower overhead doesn't mean less costs, it means less compared to the total costs. When Medicare's costs are out of control, overhead will shrink making Medicare look good to anyone dumb enough to only look at that particular statistic and conjure the image of Medicare as a model of efficiency.

- Medicare serves the elderly, they have higher expenditures because they need greater levels of medical care, thus making overhead costs smaller compared to greater total costs in percentage terms.

- Medicare has very high levels of fraud and abuse, something like $70 billion every year! They don't waste any money trying to stop it, because they don't care if needless procedures are being done or if people are stealing money, it's not their money! Private insurers, on the other hand, actively waste money to fight fraud and abuse, which adds to the overhead and reduces total costs, increasing the overhead percentage in relation to these smaller costs!

- Private insurers pay state health insurance premium taxes and all sorts of business taxes, Medicare doesn't.


P.S.: Peroxide, please spare me your misdirected hatred of Bill O'Reilly, I couldn't care less what the hell he said about Amsterdam, reply when you have something pertinent to say.

I never said statistics don't matter, social liberals have to realize that there is such a thing as "statistical sleight of hand", you shouldn't immediately trust numbers coming from the mouth of a politician or the bureaucrats he's quoting. The low Medicare overhead myth is a clear example of that:

- The overhead percentage is the administrative cost compared to total costs, so a lower overhead doesn't mean less costs, it means less compared to the total costs. When Medicare's costs are out of control, overhead will shrink making Medicare look good to anyone dumb enough to only look at that particular statistic and conjure the image of Medicare as a model of efficiency.

- Medicare serves the elderly, they have higher expenditures because they need greater levels of medical care, thus making overhead costs smaller compared to greater total costs in percentage terms.

- Medicare has very high levels of fraud and abuse, something like $70 billion every year! They don't waste any money trying to stop it, because they don't care if needless procedures are being done or if people are stealing money, it's not their money! Private insurers, on the other hand, actively waste money to fight fraud and abuse, which adds to the overhead and reduces total costs, increasing the overhead percentage in relation to these smaller costs!

- Private insurers pay state health insurance premium taxes and all sorts of business taxes, Medicare doesn't.


P.S.: I'd like to ask all social liberals with downvoting power not to downvote this post purely based on the fact that I'm not sucking up to congressman Small Weiner.

P.P.S.: Peroxide, please spare me your misdirected hatred of Bill O'Reilly, I couldn't care less what the hell he said about Amsterdam, reply when you have something pertinent to say.

United Kingdom

(GDP) spent on health care: 8.3

Average family premium: None; funded by taxation.

Co-payments: None for most services; some co-pays for dental care, eyeglasses and 5 percent of prescriptions. Young people and the elderly are exempt from all drug co-pays.

What is it? The British system is "socialized medicine" because the government both provides and pays for health care. Britons pay taxes for health care, and the government-run National Health Service (NHS) distributes those funds to health care providers. Hospital doctors are paid salaries. General practitioners (GPs), who run private practices, are paid based on the number of patients they see. A small number of specialists work outside the NHS and see private-pay patients.

How does it work? Because the system is funded through taxes, administrative costs are low; there are no bills to collect or claims to review. Patients have a "medical home" in their GP, who also serves as a gatekeeper to the rest of the system; patients must see their GP before going to a specialist. GPs, who are paid extra for keeping their patients healthy, are instrumental in preventive care, an area in which Britain is a world leader.

What are the concerns? The stereotype of socialized medicine -- long waits and limited choice -- still has some truth. In response, the British government has instituted reforms to help make care more competitive and give patients more choice. Hospitals now compete for NHS funds distributed by local Primary Care Trusts, and starting in April 2008 patients are able to choose where they want to be treated for many procedures.

Japan

GDP spent on health care: 8

Average family premium: $280 per month, with employers paying more than half.

Co-payments: 30 percent of the cost of a procedure, but the total amount paid in a month is capped according to income.

What is it? Japan uses a "social insurance" system in which all citizens are required to have health insurance, either through their work or purchased from a nonprofit, community-based plan. Those who can't afford the premiums receive public assistance. Most health insurance is private; doctors and almost all hospitals are in the private sector.

How does it work? Japan boasts some of the best health statistics in the world, no doubt due in part to the Japanese diet and lifestyle. Unlike the U.K., there are no gatekeepers; the Japanese can go to any specialist when and as often as they like. Every two years the Ministry of Health negotiates with physicians to set the price for every procedure. This helps keeps costs down.

What are the concerns? In fact, Japan has been so successful at keeping costs down that Japan now spends too little on health care; half of the hospitals in Japan are operating in the red. Having no gatekeepers means there's no check on how often the Japanese use health care, and patients may lack a medical home.

Germany

GDP spent on health care: 10.7

Average family premium: $750 per month; premiums are pegged to patients' income.

Co-payments: 10 euros ($15) every three months; some patients, like pregnant women, are exempt.

What is it? Germany, like Japan, uses a social insurance model. In fact, Germany is the birthplace of social insurance, which dates back to Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. But unlike the Japanese, who get insurance from work or are assigned to a community fund, Germans are free to buy their insurance from one of more than 200 private, nonprofit "sickness funds." As in Japan, the poor receive public assistance to pay their premiums.

How does it work? Sickness funds are nonprofit and cannot deny coverage based on preexisting conditions; they compete with each other for members, and fund managers are paid based on the size of their enrollments. Like Japan, Germany is a single-payment system, but instead of the government negotiating the prices, the sickness funds bargain with doctors as a group. Germans can go straight to a specialist without first seeing a gatekeeper doctor, but they may pay a higher co-pay if they do.

What are the concerns? The single-payment system leaves some German doctors feeling underpaid. A family doctor in Germany makes about two-thirds as much as he or she would in America. (Then again, German doctors pay much less for malpractice insurance, and many attend medical school for free.) Germany also lets the richest 10 percent opt out of the sickness funds in favor of U.S.-style for-profit insurance. These patients are generally seen more quickly by doctors, because the for-profit insurers pay doctors more than the sickness funds.

Taiwan

GDP spent on health care: 6.3

Average family premium: $650 per year for a family for four.

Co-payments: 20 percent of the cost of drugs, up to $6.50; up to $7 for outpatient care; $1.80 for dental and traditional Chinese medicine. There are exemptions for major diseases, childbirth, preventive services, and for the poor, veterans, and children.

What is it? Taiwan adopted a "National Health Insurance" model in 1995 after studying other countries' systems. Like Japan and Germany, all citizens must have insurance, but there is only one, government-run insurer. Working people pay premiums split with their employers; others pay flat rates with government help; and some groups, like the poor and veterans, are fully subsidized. The resulting system is similar to Canada's -- and the U.S. Medicare program.

How does it work? Taiwan's new health system extended insurance to the 40 percent of the population that lacked it while actually decreasing the growth of health care spending. The Taiwanese can see any doctor without a referral. Every citizen has a smart card, which is used to store his or her medical history and bill the national insurer. The system also helps public health officials monitor standards and effect policy changes nationwide. Thanks to this use of technology and the country's single insurer, Taiwan's health care system has the lowest administrative costs in the world.

What are the concerns? Like Japan, Taiwan's system is not taking in enough money to cover the medical care it provides. The problem is compounded by politics, because it is up to Taiwan's parliament to approve an increase in insurance premiums, which it has only done once since the program was enacted.

Switzerland

GDP spent on health care: 11.6

Average monthly family premium: $750, paid entirely by consumers; there are government subsidies for low-income citizens.

Co-payments: 10 percent of the cost of services, up to $420 per year.

What is it? The Swiss system is social insurance like in Japan and Germany, voted in by a national referendum in 1994. Switzerland didn't have far to go to achieve universal coverage; 95 percent of the population already had voluntary insurance when the law was passed. All citizens are required to have coverage; those not covered were automatically assigned to a company. The government provides assistance to those who can't afford the premiums.

How does it work? The Swiss example shows that universal coverage is possible, even in a highly capitalist nation with powerful insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Insurance companies are not allowed to make a profit on basic care and are prohibited from cherry-picking only young and healthy applicants. They can make money on supplemental insurance, however. As in Germany, the insurers negotiate with providers to set standard prices for services, but drug prices are set by the government.

What are the concerns? The Swiss system is the second most expensive in the world -- but it's still far cheaper than U.S. health care. Drug prices are still slightly higher than in other European nations, and even then the discounts may be subsidized by the more expensive U.S. market, where some Swiss drug companies make one-third of their profits. In general, the Swiss do not have gatekeeper doctors, although some insurance plans require them or give a discount to consumers who use them.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

First of all, being "good" has nothing to do with religion. The simple concept of reciprocal altruism explains being good, and why atheists don't all go around killing and raping.

Religion has an organized system with which it attempts to train and instruct people in how to 'be good'. Atheism does not. Is religion perfect at it? Of course not. But having a group that teaches a moral system is more likely to result in a moral people. The simple concept of reciprocal altruism without an underlying moral system to support it is rhetorical.

Second, if our problems were being solved by compassionate people at an individual level, we wouldn't have problems big enough to be addressed by collective (government) action.

This is an 'either or' point of view I reject. Using your logic, is it not equally fair to say that "If the problems were being solved by putting them in the hands of government, the USSR wouldn't have had problems that needed addressing?" Clearly the problems are NOT 'solvable' under ANY system. Therefore your statement is a logical fallacy. We do not need government programs merely because private ones have difficulties.

People place these responsibilities in the hands of PRIVATE CHARITY because most feel completely unable to help individually, so we choose to give a portion of our income so that we may, as a group, fund PRIVATE CHARITIES that have a chance of helping. And if they are flawed, then it is our responsibility to try to fix them.

See whut I did ther?

I would love for you to define "personal freedom".

Sure - the ability to think and act as I wish. That includes all levels of the human condition including social, personal, intellectual, emotional, physical, and FINANCIAL freedom.

Like the struggle now for health care, which is overwhelmingly supported by the majority.

That 'overwhelming support of the majority' explains why 52% oppose it I guess...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

So let me summarize, the conservatives who are "rugged individualists" say if you are unlucky and $#it happens to you, well then you are ****ed.

And you say my perspective is warped. Such didism as you spew here is the epitome of warped, even brainwashed, perspective. Conservatism says "If you can take care of yourself - you should." People who can afford insurance (even if it isn't 'convenient') should pay their way. Conservatives are more than willing to volunteer time, money, and help to those who need it - but that aid is not in the form of an involuntary, confiscatory tax going to a wasteful government program. It is in the form of personal, individual, freely-given time, talent, and resources.

Whereas the liberals say that any one of us at any time could face difficulties, so we should collectively try to support those that are worst off.

That isn't a liberal approach. That's a CONSERVATIVE approach. Your problem is that the FORM of your 'collective support' is politically liberal - I.E. an involuntary, forcible tax going to an iefficient, ineffective program. And you don't see how wrong that is. 'Collective aid' does not have to be 'forced taxes' or 'government programs'.

Now it may be the case that every program we try to implement is a "spectacular failure", but at least we are trying.

Private, volunteer efforts are also 'just trying' - and they don't strip away your freedoms.

In conclusion, if you feel that PRIVATE programs are not working, then you should be working to fix them or supporting people with plans on how to fix them, rather than simply giving up and trying to remove them.

C whut I did ther again?

Killing a program like social security may save you ten bucks a month, but it wouldn't help anybody.

It would save me over $100 a month. That is $1,200 a year I could be investing in my own retirement plan. Then when I retired I could be a multi-millionaire and wouldn't need Social Security. Now imagine millions of retired people who DON'T NEED SOCIAL SECURITY because they are all multi-millionaires. These people would have money for thier own medical care, to purchase goods & services, travel, or whatever else they want. They could also contribute to charity, and help out the needy because they were in a position to lend a helping hand instead of need government subsistence checks just to pay for utilities. I'd call that helping EVERYBODY. Would there be a few hard luck cases? Sure. Again - they could be helped without the spectacular failure that is the Social Security program.

You strike me as a person that has never really considered these questions, and whether perhaps the answers you were told in grade school might be mistaken in some way.

Meh - your perceptions - like your political philosophy - are inaccurate. I've pondered these issues long and deep, and arrived at conclusions as opposed to opinions. Goods & services have real costs in time & resources. It is fair & necessary for such things to have requisite prices affixed.

What if the thing that motivates people has more to do with a sense of accomplishment and personal fulfillment than actual remuneration?

Such persons still need food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and dozens of other necessities to survive & prosper. Feeling accomplished or fulfilled does not create goods & services. Work & resources do, and both of those require $$$ on Planet Earth.

I had a serious illness a few years ago... YOU ARE NOT COMPASSIONATE...!

It is a hallmark of liberalism to brainlessly demonize those who have valid but politically different points of view. I reject such foolishness. I also reject big government as a solution. Just because you may believe big government is 'more compassionate' does not make it true. There are many approaches that work just fine and DON'T involve government. Only a small percentage of people need real help. Everyone else merely needs to budget properly and plan. Those who need help can easily obtain it without a 1.3 trillion government program.

Nice anecdote though. I've got one too. I had medical costs over $250K. With my privately purchased insurance and wisely planned cafeteria plan my total out of pocket was $5K - all which was tax free. No government. Catastrophic medical is easily affordable & widely available with family plans for less than $100 a month & individual plans for less than $40. It works just fine, and that's why over 86% of all Americans (and over 70% of the NON-INSURED) are 'satisfied' with their current medical care. "But some can't afford it...!" True. Such persons can be assisted by state, municipal, and private aid. This tiny percentage does not require a 1.3 trillion national plan to address its needs.

What healthcare shold not do, however, is to be exploited for profit.

Without profit, there is no reason to provide the good or service. Let's say health care is now 'free'. Manufacturers of medical supplies, health care workers, administrators, hospitals, & clinics are still not going to be working for nothing. Therefore people are going to be earning profit under a so-called 'non-profit' public system (otherwise it wouldn't cost 1.3 trillion dollars).

Liberals are merely taking the profit they malign so much and transferring it to government - an entity that needs it the LEAST and will abuse it the MOST. Medicare alone loses over 30% of its revenue every year in fraud, abuse, and waste. That'll happen with Obamacare X10. Evil, rich insurance fatcats can be dealt with if they commit real abuses (as opposed to your personal objections over their profits). You can also go with any number of competitors if you don't like a company. Good luck trying once government is in charge.

The US government spends more money, yes MORE TAXPAYER's MONEY (hear that, republicans?) today then every single country that provides free, universal healthcare

Aaand so that means we should increase the federal budget by a further 1.3 trillion? Specious reasoning, especially when you consider that with medicare/medicaid the government is already spending hundreds of billions on medical care.

I just feel, that people should be able to go to the doctor without having to worry about if and how they are going to pay for it.

This simple statement should explain very clearly to everyone exactly why 'government' health care will not be affordable, sustainable, or feasible. I would very much like to hear just exactly the explanation of how the system will cost less when it is filled with 300+ million human beings who "don't worry about how they are going to pay for it." Because government is going to (ahem) aggressively negotiate costs? Just like how they aggressively negotiate costs with Medicare & Medicaid? Or with military spending $200 on a toilet seat and $75 for a lugnut? As with all government programs, such a system would quickly become rife with cronyism, corruption, waste, graft, and outright theft.

Meanwhile, average people who just want medical care would soon find that 'government' medicine is certainly not free. They'll have payments to make (and bankrupcy to suffer though) just as much as with the private system. The difference is it will cost more (in total with taxes and fees) and will provide much crappier service (since coverage & quality will inevitably be scaled back). And of course, grandpa would be denied coverage for his helicopter ride for neck surgery just as readily as if he had a private insurer.

So, with some bad luck, you can get sick and get yourself into a lot of debt, or you can choose the republican plan - TO DIE QUICKLY.

Hyperbole. No Republican has ever said so, nor even implied it. For you to say it is both false, and makes you seem like some sort of propoganda parrotting puppet. I'd suggest you divest yourself of such simplistic dictotimisms if you wish to be else but a political zombie. The solution is to PURCHASE some freaking catastropic medical coverage. It is not unaffordable. You can get catastrophic medical for a very reasonable price for any number of private insurers. Then you don't go bankrupt. Simple. Easy. So of course that is not the solution government wants.

The reason people die from "lack of medical care" is because getting treated without insurance is difficult and expensive. There are a numerous ways be uninsured negatively effects your life and health. I know this from personal experience. I will only mention here a few instances that I directly experienced.

When I was about 16, my mother was on leave from the post office after getting injured. My father worked at a school as maintenance. His insurance didn't cover me, and my mothers was suspended while she was out of work, so I was left uninsured. I was goofing off in the woods and tripped on some old lumber and get a rusy nail in my calf. Nothing serious, just a small wound that needed 3 stitches and a tetanus shot. We went down, waited several hours, and then was taken care of. (the wait time is due to the fact that my local hospital is terrible, not my lack of insurance) After a week, my mother got the outrageous bill for something around $1100. There were all kinds of insane fees tacked on. There was even a fee for it being a Sunday when I went to the emergency room. With my mother out of work at the time, money was pretty tight and this was a big problem for the family. I was supposed to return about 2 weeks later to have the stitches removed. This was going to cost another $200 or so, and we just couldn't afford it. My mother and I ended up waiting till I was supposed to return and have them taken out, and just did it ourselves. Now, removing 3 stitches from a healed up leg wound isn't a big deal. We did it no problem. However what if something had gone terribly wrong. Or what if it wasn't just 3 simple stitches but something much more intricate. Having to spend another $200 would have forced us to cut back on things like FOOD. These are the decisions uninsured people have to make. Getting treatment or paying rent. Getting your prescription filled or eating that week. I'm sorry, but those are not decisions people should have to make. I'd also like to point out, my family wasn't poor. We were lower middle class. There are a lot of people that were worse off than we were.
Another example was only a few years ago. My father was at work, he tends bar now, and randomly passed out. (No he was not drunk, his blood sugar was very low, and they told him he may be hypoglycemic) He woke up a few seconds later, but was put in an ambulance and taken to the ER. He was admitted, they drew some blood, did some tests, and told him to eat a candy bar and sent him home. Fast forward a week or so and he gets the bill. Over $5000. Roughly $700 of it was for the ambulance ride, from the volunteer ambulance core in our town to the hospital, about a 10 mile, all highway. Luckily for my father, he doesn't have a mortgage or rent to pay as the house he lives in is paid for. Never the less, he would send in a payment each month. As much as he could spare, and it still took him well over a year to pay if all off.
I understand that treatment costs money. I understand there are supplies, utilities, payroll, and other costs required to run a hospital or doctors office. I just feel, that people should be able to go to the doctor without having to worry about if and how they are going to pay for it. In a modern country, with all the money and power we have, no one should ever have to choose between food and care. It's insane.

There are other causes of death out there than what a simple visit to an ER can cure.

Yes - which is precisely why it is propoganda for Mr. Doofus to say they 'died of not having coverage' or to imply anything of the sort. All the people he's listing lived in the US - and had access to health care. To say they died for any reason except the simple vicissitudes of life is preposterious on its face. People die. It happens. He's trying to say "Pass Obamacare, and these deaths won't happen." Bull feathers.

How did you get to a point that when someone states the fact that people die due to lack of medical care

Because they didn't. His claim they 'died of lack of medical care' is a complete falsehood. It is leftist bilge that is being used to sucker the simple and stupid into giving government obsence amounts of money and power.

but when a company denies health coverage due to absurd preexisting conditions, they're considered model businessmen?

Let's not mince about it. Insurance tries to control costs. Human need is a bottomless, gaping maw that by definition cannot be filled no matter how generous and munificent the resource pool. Someone somewhere at some point has to say "No". There isn't an infinite pool of money, and medical care is not free (nor should it be). People need to be paid. Research needs to take place. Drugs need to be manufactured. Supplies have to be shipped. Facilities have to be built, maintained, and updated. It costs $$$$.

Government is right now in the process of slinging a huge lie that it will somehow be able to control these costs more efficiently than the private sector. It's total crap. They've never succeeded in this goal once with ANYTHING - especially not medical programs. Why should we believe they can now?

Social medicine costs are not proportionally less then private. Nor is coverage more generally widespread. Government run health care controls costs by denying services, lowering quality, not 'covering' standard tests, completely denying specialized tests, and on and on and on. SOcial medicine controls costs by denying and delaying care just as much (or more) than private coverage. At its very best, social medicine is a wash compared to private in terms of 'care'.

But it comes as an immense price in freedom, and accrued power to government. Such a path is historically fraught with peril. It isn't worth it. We're better off with freedom in a private system (however flawed) than with a public one. No doubts. No question. It's just a fact. Government can play a regulatory role and be helpful. But that's not what they want to do, so I'm not going to pretend. They're trying to become a provider. Blech.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
The numbers he's reading are of people who died because they didn't have access to healthcare.
In the US there is no such thing of people who have 'no access' to medical care. If you walk in to a clinic or a hospital, you get treated. And if you don't have money, you get the treatment gratis. To imply they wouldn't have died "if only" they had government subsidized insurance is beyond inaccurate. It is disingenous, manipulative propoganda of the worst sort. If that's his reasoning then Mr. Doofus is a rhetorical graverobber digging up corpses to parade around for political purposes. What a ghoul.

There are other causes of death out there than what a simple visit to an ER can cure.

How did you get to a point that when someone states the fact that people die due to lack of medical care, he gets dubbed a "graverobber" and a "ghoul", but when a company denies health coverage due to absurd preexisting conditions, they're considered model businessmen?

The numbers he's reading are of people who died because they didn't have access to healthcare.

In the US there is no such thing of people who have 'no access' to medical care. If you walk in to a clinic or a hospital, you get treated. And if you don't have money, you get the treatment gratis. To imply they wouldn't have died "if only" they had government subsidized insurance is beyond inaccurate. It is disingenous, manipulative propoganda of the worst sort. If that's his reasoning then Mr. Doofus is a rhetorical graverobber digging up corpses to parade around for political purposes. What a ghoul.

Well the status-quo at the moment is that many hard-working rugged individuals are dying and going bankrupt because other hard-working, rugged individuals are stealing from them.

Hard working rugged individuals in European countries are also dying and going bankrupt because other people are stealing from them. Moving the United States towards a European model is not going to move the needle on that kind of injustice. This is one of those 'false choices' in the debate that I reject utterly. Merely because injustice exists does not mean that America should give up its principles and ideals.

Single payer medical care does not remove the 'dying'. It does not stop 'bankruptcies'. It merely takes both of those things and puts a different label on them. I do not call hiding backruptcy costs in taxes an improvement. I do not accept the implication that fewer people die in single-payer systems, or even that more people get medical care in general. Socialized medicine denies coverage all the time, rations care, and delays treatments.

However, the Founding Fathers never envisioned Corporations with the powers and financial clout of medium-sized fiefdoms.

They were far more horrified (and rightly so) with the vision of a huge, dictitorial central government. Turning over control of health care to the kind of entity they feared the most is not a proper solution to health care issues.

The power of your constitution doesn't lie in the fact it was designed to limit federal powers, it is the ability to change, and be remade to govern the country no matter what new idea and problem that it faces.

But when politicians who desire power abuse that mutability then it is the duty of the people to stand up and oppose it. That is what the opposition to health care reform is about. Government has no role in health care. It never did, and never should.

Your medical industry is corrupt and immoral. It's time your government stepped in

I don't have a problem with limited federal regulation. That can be useful. However, that is not what is being discussed. Liberal Democrat health care 'reform' is not a polite and proper regulation of corporate excess. It is Federal government deciding to enter the market itself, undercut the competition, and replace the system with a government run Frankenstien's monster. If the Democrat bills were ONLY about regulation then maybe more people would support them. But it is clear and crystal that the Democrat bills have nothing to do with regulation, and almost nothing to do with 'health care' in general. They are bills desgined to increase the size and scope of federal power by taking advantage of an easily manipulated emotional issue. Every politician involved in this fiasco should be run out of DC on a rail and banned from politics for life.

The proposal to solve the issue of Insurance companies 'playing God' by denying coverage and 'stealing money' by trying to be profitable seems pretty off the mark. The solution creates a power that is far more historically likely to 'play God' in a bad way, as well as 'stealing money' at a level the private industry alternatives couldn't even dream of.

From a medical standpoint I'll add that sure, this could be great for normal births that lack congenital defects and yield healthy babies. Using midwives and birthing at home will be less costly to you as a 'consumer' of medical care, and gives us, the medical staff, more time to worry about those babies that do have a problem and need constant monitoring, etc.

So yeah, normal baby = go right ahead.

Sick baby = take your chances, but I don't recommend it.