whitelotus

Nice Whitelotus.  I'd like to see this posted in Controversial Discussions.

I have mixed emotions about this.  While I'm not sure that the pure socialist model would work well or provide better service, something needs to be done.  No easy answers.

wooooh buddy. Calm down there. You have more WAGs in that article then I saw in my last software project planning meeting!

"l hear that Europeans pay through the roof in taxes to fund socialist health care."

Where did you hear this from? First, before we get to cost. You shouldn't lump Europe all in the same bucket. Each country actually has a slightly different health care system. Some are government run, others are privately run, others are a mix of both. Lots of them offer "basic care" universally, and then let people buy insurance for improved care. That keeps a nice market for competition and innovation.

Now, on to the cost. The US actually pay more per-capita for health care then all other countries. Here's a source for that http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm  over 6k a year for every man women and child. That's a lot of money! ( In fact, just the US governments current health care expenses, about 3k per capita, could pay for a universal system equivalent to France. No tax increase needed. )

There are a lot of levels of waste, no single part of the health care system is really to blame. This data show though, that we could have "better" universal care then those European countries, and not have any tax increases. ( or maybe you have a tax increase, but you're no longer paying 500 a month for insurance. )

Regardless of the cost issues though. This should really upset everyone in this health care reform. The fact that "single payer" isn't even on the table in the debate. That should upset every American, whether you agree with single payer or not, because "single payer" is what the _majority_ of Americans want. The last time I checked, this was a democracy!

I disagree with SpinizaQ. No way should the Federal Government get more involved with our health care. One of the reasons our health care system is screwed up is the Feds have been involved, i.e. medicare, mandatory treatment in the emergency room, etc. Our government does not have the capability to monitor itself on spending.

One of the biggest problems we have is not addressing Tort Reform. Lawyers have lobbied the Democrats and as a result we still see outlandish lawsuits. Insurance companies must then charge more for insurance protection. The doctors then have to charge more for services.

SpinozaQ's belief we will not have to increase taxes for a universal plan is whacked! You can't debate someone liked that because they will fabricate numbers. All you can do is look at other countries with socialized plans and see how bad it is to go down that road. Plus...where will the Canadians go if we socialize our health care system? They pay out of their pockets to leave their system to come here!

Here's The Deal. The FACTS are.

A. Canadian hospitals on average have lower wait time!

B. Government health care does not mean less choice!

C. Universal Health costs less and would not cost much in taxes, once operating.

Here's The Deal. Why Are These Facts.

A. Preventive health care reduces the need to see a doctor, so access to health care will reduce the need for health care. People will see a doctor when it is best for them, instead of waiting until the it maybe more serious and thus more costly. And since they will see a doctor when they need to and will have better over all health, the line to see a doctor will decrease.(Note I am a dual citizen and have been to see doctors in Canada and the line is shorter there then in the U.S.A.)

B. The government would only act as an insurance company, it would not own the medical practices and therefore would not be in a position to regulate health care in a way that would limit choices.

C. Since access to health care at a low cost encourages people to seek preventive care which is less costly, once operating such a health care system would generate less cost, and would not require much of a tax increase to pay for it.  

Further stop to think about how the medical issue impacts business in the U.S.A. Employers pay to insure the workers, this is an added cost in doing business. Sometime the burden of that cost can put small emerging business out of business, thus costing jobs. Not only that but the cost of that medical is passed along to everyone in the cost of products and services, as well as lower worker wages. So in effect you are paying a Tax on health care already, it's built in to the cost of your daily life. And it is far more expensive this way then if you were taxed by the government.

And on the issue of "seeing its a bad idea" If it is so bad and the "Socialized" countries hate it so much, why haven't they gone back? And why is it if out system is so great, that we rank 45th in over all life expectancy in the world. Almost all of the countries we don't want to be rank above us. Almost all of the countries below us are third world nations..... Seems odd that the world power just barely squeaks in above the third world nations in life expectancy.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa042000b.htm https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html) It just seems odd to me that if it were so bad why it it we are the only "First World" country that doesn't have it. Certainly if it were so bad we should here about the civil unrest over health care in Spain, France, Germany, ect.....

Hmmm seems odd......

TheAce is mistaken here.

1. This is not true, the wait for specialized surgery is

  18.3 weeks, over four mounths

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/fraser-report.html

  Also, your personal expirience is not a real gauge of

  Canada's health care system it mearly reflects what the

  system has like that given day.

2. While not immedietly it could lead to that. Auto insurers

  attempt to steer customers toward mechanics who are most

  favorable to them. What's to stop the government from

  doing that?

3. That's simply not true. A perceived low cost healthcare

  system will cause people to use it more. This is human

  nature. Why spend the time to take care of yourself on a

  day to day basis when the government will foot the bill

  for your eventual hospital visit? Also the health care

  still has to be paid for and so taxes will take the place

  of insurance premiums and it will pass the cost on the

  the taxpayer this means taxes will rise. Just because

  it's government operated doesn't mean it is more

  efficient. This may or may not have already been said but

  our government is spectacularly incapable of handling

  large sums of money.

Finally, life expectancy is not an accurate representation of a country's healthcare system because it factors in non medical reasons: murder, traffic accidents, nutrition, etc. The U.S. fares far worse than many country's in these areas which skews life expectancy.