I now favor nationalized health care

[Instatewaiter]

.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MOHS_01]

Nobody who has actually studied the problem is going to say that our system is fine the way it is.

I support a system that makes healthcare accessible (not free) to everyone. However, this means that there will be people who will not take advantage of it. If we want to have a society that is based on hard work and self reliance then we have to accept that there will be people who do not work hard and refuse to be self reliant.

and they should be allowed to suffer their chosen Darwinian fate...

 

[futuredo32]

I doubt it would be affected at all because all our health care systems are "after the fact" and have little to do with prevention. That'd take a cultural change.

BTW, futuredr32 was quoting from the Fraser Institute, which is hardly an "independent research organization," but a right-wing think tank determined to dismantle our single-payer system so that huge profits can be reaped.

I mean, we've got 30 million people spread over five time zones. Some of our challenges related to health care delivery are geographical. I haven't totally vetted Wikipedia's entry for accuracy, but at least it's ideologically neutral.

Is "Nature" a right-wing think tank too?
Here are other links about wait times in Canada. Avg wait for CABG- 3 months!
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/10/31
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/st...cma/Media_Release/pdf/2008/EconomicReport.pdf
http://www.waittimes.net/waittimes/en/wt_proximity.aspx?city=toronto&pc=&dist=0&site=40
Stevenson Memorial Hospital (Alliston) 57 days avg wait for general surgery. That sounds like a loooooong time. But, compared to St. Michael's Hospital (Toronto) with an avg wait of 186 days, maybe 57 days isn't that bad.

 

[seelee]

and they should be allowed to suffer their chosen Darwinian fate...

That actually brings up an interesting, though largely unrelated issue.

Economic conservatives almost exclusively support capitalism and the free market which ideally functions on a "survival of the fittest" evolutionary model. Bad businesses flounder, while the good businesses succeed. The overall competition between businesses gives rise to the superior "traits" of lower prices and better products.

However, social conservatives who are largely in the evangelical christian camp oppose the idea of evolution because many view that it denies the possibility of God.

Also, liberals and progressives, who support teaching evolution in schools, oppose capitalism and the free market, and enact legislation to protect the "victims" of natural selection.

Mindboggling!

 

[MOHS_01]

That actually brings up an interesting, though largely unrelated issue.

Economic conservatives almost exclusively support capitalism and the free market which ideally functions on a "survival of the fittest" evolutionary model. Bad businesses flounder, while the good businesses succeed. The overall competition between businesses gives rise to the superior "traits" of lower prices and better products.

However, social conservatives who are largely in the evangelical christian camp oppose the idea of evolution because many view that it denies the possibility of God.

Also, liberals and progressives, who support teaching evolution in schools, oppose capitalism and the free market, and enact legislation to protect the "victims" of natural selection.

Mindboggling!

TOTALLY unrelated, but you are right... it does not make a lot of sense... I have never believed that God and evolution were mutually exclusive concepts.. but I was not brought up evangelical... I am a strict Constitutionalist, but I am less certain about the literal, concrete translation of religious texts, including the Bible... vexing, I know....

 

[medisforme]

This thread is officially turned into a debate of politics/religion. We will likely need to start a new one if someone here actually wants to talk about health care system delivery models.

 

[AFSmiley]

Nobody who has actually studied the problem is going to say that our system is fine the way it is.

I support a system that makes healthcare accessible (not free) to everyone. However, this means that there will be people who will not take advantage of it. If we want to have a society that is based on hard work and self reliance then we have to accept that there will be people who do not work hard and refuse to be self reliant.

I'm AFSmiley, and I approve of this message.

 

[seelee]

This thread is officially turned into a debate of politics/religion. We will likely need to start a new one if someone here actually wants to talk about health care system delivery models.

Get off it. There was one off topic post.

 

[Pharmavixen]

Is "Nature" a right-wing think tank too?
Here are other links about wait times in Canada. Avg wait for CABG- 3 months!
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/10/31
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/st...cma/Media_Release/pdf/2008/EconomicReport.pdf
http://www.waittimes.net/waittimes/en/wt_proximity.aspx?city=toronto&pc=&dist=0&site=40
Stevenson Memorial Hospital (Alliston) 57 days avg wait for general surgery. That sounds like a loooooong time. But, compared to St. Michael's Hospital (Toronto) with an avg wait of 186 days, maybe 57 days isn't that bad.

I'm not sure where the wait times stats come from; I can only speak from personal experience. When my dr thought I had cancer, I got booked for surgery inside of 2 weeks. And a couple of years ago, I had an MRI for a non-emergency situation (lingering back and hip pain), and I waited 5 weeks (that's weeks; not months). But if I were impatient (and rich), I could have paid to go south of the border and get it done immediately, and just find out sooner what my dr had said: probably, nothing can be done about it.

If you've had an ACS and require an emergency CABG, you'd get it immediately. My mum had a non STE ACS a few years ago, and got a PCI right away, and because she's over 65, she didn't have to pay for her year's worth of post-stent clopidogrel.

We have the usual health care problems in my family; diabetes, HTN, etc, and nobody has had to declare bankruptcy on account of medical bills except my American uncle, who was irresponsible enough to max out his medical insurance by having 3 heart attacks in one year.

Speaking of Canadians who go to the States to get instant health care, how about all those Americans who come north to get fake health cards and free health care? A few years ago, the Ontario Ministry of Health had to tighten its security when they discovered they'd issued something like 100,000 more health cards than there are people in Ontario. In one case, 3 hysterectomies were billed to one health number.

I mean, we all get free health care, so it isn't Canadians who are ripping off the system.

 

[MOHS_01]

... I mean, we all get free health care, so it isn't Canadians who are ripping off the system.

Does the word "free" change definitions somehow once you cross a certain parallel?

 

[AFSmiley]

Is "Nature" a right-wing think tank too?
Here are other links about wait times in Canada. Avg wait for CABG- 3 months!
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/10/31
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/st...cma/Media_Release/pdf/2008/EconomicReport.pdf
http://www.waittimes.net/waittimes/en/wt_proximity.aspx?city=toronto&pc=&dist=0&site=40
Stevenson Memorial Hospital (Alliston) 57 days avg wait for general surgery. That sounds like a loooooong time. But, compared to St. Michael's Hospital (Toronto) with an avg wait of 186 days, maybe 57 days isn't that bad.

The first two links no worky worky!

 

[AFSmiley]

I'm not sure where the wait times stats come from; I can only speak from personal experience. When my dr thought I had cancer, I got booked for surgery inside of 2 weeks. And a couple of years ago, I had an MRI for a non-emergency situation (lingering back and hip pain), and I waited 5 weeks (that's weeks; not months). But if I were impatient (and rich), I could have paid to go south of the border and get it done immediately, and just find out sooner what my dr had said: probably, nothing can be done about it.

If you've had an ACS and require an emergency CABG, you'd get it immediately. My mum had a non STE ACS a few years ago, and got a PCI right away, and because she's over 65, she didn't have to pay for her year's worth of post-stent clopidogrel.

We have the usual health care problems in my family; diabetes, HTN, etc, and nobody has had to declare bankruptcy on account of medical bills except my American uncle, who was irresponsible enough to max out his medical insurance by having 3 heart attacks in one year.

Speaking of Canadians who go to the States to get instant health care, how about all those Americans who come north to get fake health cards and free health care? A few years ago, the Ontario Ministry of Health had to tighten its security when they discovered they'd issued something like 100,000 more health cards than there are people in Ontario. In one case, 3 hysterectomies were billed to one health number.

I mean, we all get free health care, so it isn't Canadians who are ripping off the system.

My personal experience with our system has been great too. What does that prove?

We need to find a balance between efficiency and effectiveness. Proponents of government run systems point to their measures of effectiveness, while proponents of private systems favor efficiency. It's difficult to have one and the other together and it will take careful changes to increase our effectiveness without being excessively detrimental to our efficiency.

A good family friend of ours got good healthcare here also for his CHD. What does that prove?


That's great. I'm happy your family is happy. I've posted sources on this thread earlier that show our medical bankruptcy rate is probably significantly less than what's portrayed in the media.

Anecdotal stories are like...........ear lobes........everybody's got a couple and nobody cares.

 

[Pharmavixen]

Does the word "free" change definitions somehow once you cross a certain parallel?

I'm just saying, if our health care system is so inferior, what's with all the thousands of Americans coming up here?

 

[Instatewaiter]

I'm just saying, if our health care system is so inferior, what's with all the thousands of Americans coming up here?

Who do you think those people were who went up to canada? Do you think they were wealthy americans who came up there to get the great health care of Canada or do you think they were poor americans who couldnt afford the health care in America?

To me it seems like the derelict of the US go up to Canada and the rich of Canada that cannot stand the wait come down here. So those who have no options go up there, those who have means and options come down here... Which sounds like it gives better care... just asking.

 

[seelee]

Who do you think those people were who went up to canada? Do you think they were wealthy americans who came up there to get the great health care of Canada or do you think they were poor americans who couldnt afford the health care in America?

To me it seems like the derelict of the US go up to Canada and the rich of Canada that cannot stand the wait come down here. So those who have no options go up there, those who have means and options come down here... Which sounds like it gives better care... just asking.

Zing!

 

[futuredo32]

The first two links no worky worky!

Sorry about that. Here's one of them. I can't find the other.
http://esciencenews.com/articles/20....wait.lists.a.key.reason.excessive.wait.times

I'm not sure where the wait times stats come from; I can only speak from personal experience. When my dr thought I had cancer, I got booked for surgery inside of 2 weeks. And a couple of years ago, I had an MRI for a non-emergency situation (lingering back and hip pain), and I waited 5 weeks (that's weeks; not months). But if I were impatient (and rich), I could have paid to go south of the border and get it done immediately, and just find out sooner what my dr had said: probably, nothing can be done about it.

If you've had an ACS and require an emergency CABG, you'd get it immediately. My mum had a non STE ACS a few years ago, and got a PCI right away, and because she's over 65, she didn't have to pay for her year's worth of post-stent clopidogrel.

We have the usual health care problems in my family; diabetes, HTN, etc, and nobody has had to declare bankruptcy on account of medical bills except my American uncle, who was irresponsible enough to max out his medical insurance by having 3 heart attacks in one year.

Speaking of Canadians who go to the States to get instant health care, how about all those Americans who come north to get fake health cards and free health care? A few years ago, the Ontario Ministry of Health had to tighten its security when they discovered they'd issued something like 100,000 more health cards than there are people in Ontario. In one case, 3 hysterectomies were billed to one health number.

I mean, we all get free health care, so it isn't Canadians who are ripping off the system.

If a Canadian doesn't work, I guess the healthcare would be free to them, but it's not free to the hardworking taxpayers.

The last link I used in my previous post is from the Canadian government, you type in where you live and it gives you the average wait time.


And I've known of people who died waiting in Canada. Anecdotal evidence doesn't really mean a whole lot in the medical field, that's why they do studies and compile information. Since you seem to prefer anecdotal evidence, here's a few posts from a message board talking about wait times in Canada. http://www.msworld.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&t=76196

I'm just wondering how long did you have to wait for your mri, my neuro ordered it in October in Calgary and now it's almost February and have heard nothing.I know there backed up but geez you think they would phone and tell u ahead of time.
I'm in BC. I had the order in August and didn't get it till the last days of October. My Neuro had to keep on them and tell them to expidite and it still took that long.

Keep on top of the office-call and ask and when they do book it, call the hospital and ask them to put you on a cancellation list.

Sadly, it takes ages. I know-I now have to have mine done all over again. I am starting from square one at this point. At this rate, it's going to take a year to get some treatment!

Hang in there!


Wow. I often feel torn, cynical, and many other things, regarding the difference between the Canadian and U.S. health care systems.

I strongly believe that both systems have some things to offer that the other system doesn't have. I also strongly believe that both systems need improvement and are far from perfect. Both sytstems, IMO, allow people to fall through the cracks.

My first MS symptom was a stroke-like incident, at the age of 39. I was taken to the ER in the middle of the night via ambulance, because I was unable to walk, due to extreme dizziness, and loss of use of my left side.

My first MRI occurred, probably, 8 hours after I arrived in the ER. In the state of Kansas -- not in Canada.

I can no longer imagine waiting months.

~ Faith
* Canadian citizen, U.S. resident
* Was raised in Canada. My biological family still lives in Canada (Saskatoon and Edmonton).
* Married a U.S. citizen. Have spent most of my adult life in Kansas.

 

[futuredo32]

Who do you think those people were who went up to canada? Do you think they were wealthy americans who came up there to get the great health care of Canada or do you think they were poor americans who couldnt afford the health care in America?

To me it seems like the derelict of the US go up to Canada and the rich of Canada that cannot stand the wait come down here. So those who have no options go up there, those who have means and options come down here... Which sounds like it gives better care... just asking.

 

[Pharmavixen]

Who do you think those people were who went up to canada? Do you think they were wealthy americans who came up there to get the great health care of Canada or do you think they were poor americans who couldnt afford the health care in America?

To me it seems like the derelict of the US go up to Canada and the rich of Canada that cannot stand the wait come down here. So those who have no options go up there, those who have means and options come down here... Which sounds like it gives better care... just asking.

If you're rich, it doesn't matter where you live, I suppose. Kidney failure? Just go to India or China and buy a kidney.

 

[medisforme]

Who do you think those people were who went up to canada? Do you think they were wealthy americans who came up there to get the great health care of Canada or do you think they were poor americans who couldnt afford the health care in America?

To me it seems like the derelict of the US go up to Canada and the rich of Canada that cannot stand the wait come down here. So those who have no options go up there, those who have means and options come down here... Which sounds like it gives better care... just asking.

The fact of the matter is that if one is wealthy one can get quite high quality care anywhere. Most countries in the world have a niche health care market to provide for the rich and famous (yes, even poor countries provide good care to their government leaders and diplomats). The only reason that Canadians come down to the states is because they are ignorant of the fact that there are numerous private clinics (MRI, ortho related, opthamology related etc...) popping up in urban centers all over the country that pander to people like them.
Furthermore, Canadian citizens who come to the states to get care or attend a private clinic tend to put more pressure on our single payer system. Any sort of post-op infection/complication or follow up care will invariably be handled by the public sector as opposed to those in the private sector who performed the original procedure.
Finally, everyday people tend to be rather ignorant / unknowledgeable about issues related to healthcare. Many of them think that if health care cost more (ie. travelling down to the states) it must be higher quality which in reality tends to not be the case.

 

[AFSmiley]

The fact of the matter is that if one is wealthy one can get quite high quality care anywhere. Most countries in the world have a niche health care market to provide for the rich and famous (yes, even poor countries provide good care to their government leaders and diplomats).

Ya for the most part I agree, as long as people are allowed to spend their own money and make their own choices. I believe people should be able to spend their worth as they see fit, and that 99% of the time, government limiting that freedom is a violation of individual liberty.

The only reason that Canadians come down to the states is because they are ignorant of the fact that there are numerous private clinics (MRI, ortho related, opthamology related etc...) popping up in urban centers all over the country that pander to people like them.
Furthermore, Canadian citizens who come to the states to get care or attend a private clinic tend to put more pressure on our single payer system. Any sort of post-op infection/complication or follow up care will invariably be handled by the public sector as opposed to those in the private sector who performed the original procedure.

Wouldn't private clinics in Canada put similar burdens on the public system? Complications end up in the public system...less doctors working for the public system...Are you saying that public financed and privately financed healthcare can't co-exist?

Finally, everyday people tend to be rather ignorant / unknowledgeable about issues related to healthcare. Many of them think that if health care cost more (ie. travelling down to the states) it must be higher quality which in reality tends to not be the case.

Effectiveness vs. efficiency, my friend, effectiveness vs efficiency.

On a related note, why did this thread suddenly jump to discussing the Canadian system?

 

[medisforme]

Wouldn't private clinics in Canada put similar burdens on the public system? Complications end up in the public system...less doctors working for the public system...Are you saying that public financed and privately financed healthcare can't co-exist?

The private clinics I mentioned in my post were implied to be from Canada. So yes, they do put a burden on the public system. You basically mentioned most of the reasons why already so I won't rehash them. Obviously private and public healthcare can co-exist (although I, and everyone else have opinions on its efficacy) but one has to also examine societal values of the citizens who the health care is delivered to. In Canada, we have the Canada health act which states that everyone who is a Canadian citizen has the right to Universal health care regardless of income, ethnicity, etc... In this vein favoring certain citizens over others (by giving the wealthy opportunities to attend private clinics) isn't socially acceptable. The US has a more individualistic, profit oriented value system where public/private healthcare is much more acceptable to the public (regardless of its efficacy).
ps.
I guess this thread did get a little off track, sorry about that.

 

[seelee]

The private clinics I mentioned in my post were implied to be from Canada. So yes, they do put a burden on the public system. You basically mentioned most of the reasons why already so I won't rehash them. Obviously private and public healthcare can co-exist (although I, and everyone else have opinions on its efficacy) but one has to also examine societal values of the citizens who the health care is delivered to. In Canada, we have the Canada health act which states that everyone who is a Canadian citizen has the right to Universal health care regardless of income, ethnicity, etc... In this vein favoring certain citizens over others (by giving the wealthy opportunities to attend private clinics) isn't socially acceptable. The US has a more individualistic, profit oriented value system where public/private healthcare is much more acceptable to the public (regardless of its efficacy).
ps.
I guess this thread did get a little off track, sorry about that.

So, in other words it is better to force everyone to have crappy health care rather than to have some people pay for better health care?

Why just apply that to health care? Food is much more necessary for life than health care. Why not prevent the "evil rich" from buying steak, shrimp, fine dining, etc. so that there will not be a difference between the rich and poor in that department.

The logical extension of your justification for the system is socialism. Socialism leads inevitably leads to a stagnant society. There is no reason to work hard or excel if everything is provided to you. There is no reason to better yourself or to try and innovate or create anything. There is a reason that the USA rose to prominance in such a short time. It is because our people had freedom. That is the one factor that differentiated our country from the rest. Our decline on the other hand correlates directly when the government began to be more heavy handed and started this notion that the productive members of society are the enemy.

 

[MOHS_01]

So, in other words it is better to force everyone to have crappy health care rather than to have some people pay for better health care?

Why just apply that to health care? Food is much more necessary for life than health care. Why not prevent the "evil rich" from buying steak, shrimp, fine dining, etc. so that there will not be a difference between the rich and poor in that department.

The logical extension of your justification for the system is socialism. Socialism leads inevitably leads to a stagnant society. There is no reason to work hard or excel if everything is provided to you. There is no reason to better yourself or to try and innovate or create anything. There is a reason that the USA rose to prominance in such a short time. It is because our people had freedom. That is the one factor that differentiated our country from the rest. Our decline on the other hand correlates directly when the government began to be more heavy handed and started this notion that the productive members of society are the enemy.

x 2.

 

[medisforme]

The logical extension of your justification for the system is socialism. Socialism leads inevitably leads to a stagnant society. There is no reason to work hard or excel if everything is provided to you. There is no reason to better yourself or to try and innovate or create anything. There is a reason that the USA rose to prominance in such a short time. It is because our people had freedom. That is the one factor that differentiated our country from the rest. Our decline on the other hand correlates directly when the government began to be more heavy handed and started this notion that the productive members of society are the enemy.

this post is so ridiculous i don't know where to begin.
i don't want to rehash past posts that i've done, but you seriously need to look up and understand the different between socialism and universal health care, they are not even remotely related.

I have to laugh at your contention that the "freedom" enjoyed by the USA differentiates you from the rest. Your nationalistic rhetoric is a little tiring - this is supposed to be a site about health care not political propaganda. If you seriously have your head that buried in the sand, then I doubt anything I say will shake any sense into you.

Your food analogy doesn't work. People aren't going to die at different times if one eats a steak and another eats beans (beans actually would likely be healthier). Do you get it, cheaper food tends to be healthier then expensive food (ie. carrots vs. foie gras) so you can't compare it to healthcare, it makes no sense. There is a chance though that people will die earlier if they recieve inferior healthcare.

To put the record straight I don't think the rich are "evil" which you blatantly implied. They are the anchor of our economy, and help run many important industries. However, I believe health care should be a right for everyone regardless of income or life circumstances, so one shouldn't get preferential treatment for being rich.

 

[medisforme]

So, in other words it is better to force everyone to have crappy health care rather than to have some people pay for better health care?

What is the reference you are using for "crappy health care"? Your post is way to vague. All developed countries provide quite high quality care to their citizens. You seem to be implying that the healthcare in countries where people don't "pay" for it is poor quality, without any reference or anything to back up your assertion. We both know that your assertion is untrue so I suggest your post a retraction.

ps
crappy health care = government's denying the existence of AIDS, children dying of dysentery or malnutrition, throwing the mentally ill into insane asylum's etc...

 

[Instatewaiter]

this post is so ridiculous i don't know where to begin.
i don't want to rehash past posts that i've done, but you seriously need to look up and understand the different between socialism and universal health care, they are not even remotely related.

I have to laugh at your contention that the "freedom" enjoyed by the USA differentiates you from the rest. Your nationalistic rhetoric is a little tiring - this is supposed to be a site about health care not political propaganda. If you seriously have your head that buried in the sand, then I doubt anything I say will shake any sense into you.

Your food analogy doesn't work. People aren't going to die at different times if one eats a steak and another eats beans (beans actually would likely be healthier). Do you get it, cheaper food tends to be healthier then expensive food (ie. carrots vs. foie gras) so you can't compare it to healthcare, it makes no sense. There is a chance though that people will die earlier if they recieve inferior healthcare.

To put the record straight I don't think the rich are "evil" which you blatantly implied. They are the anchor of our economy, and help run many important industries. However, I believe health care should be a right for everyone regardless of income or life circumstances, so one shouldn't get preferential treatment for being rich.

A few random comments:
Who is going to have to provide the coverage for those uninsured to make the US universal? The gov't. Any health care system that is gov't controlled is socialized. Note that socialism and socialized are not the same thing but the ideology behind the two are almost identical despite the connotation of the word socialism.

Every time I hear the word "freedom" associated with why the US is great, I roll my eyes. Thanks GWB. You actually ruined freedom for me.

A few issues with your posts about food. First the food analogy is actually good one. If you view health care is a right and should be provided for all citizens, why not food too? Why not shelter? Those are actually much more integral to health than health care coverage, especially in the US.

Your bit about cheaper food being healthier is actually wrong. When you compare average healthy food to unhealthy delicacies, sure it seems like healthy food is cheaper. When you compare non-delicacy items it is just the opposite. Buying fresh vegetables, fresh meat, nuts etc is much more expensive than buying processed food like potato chips, frozen dinners. If I were to make a stir fry meal with fresh veggies and chicken it would cost me about double what it would to buy a frozen meal that would have much more fat, less nutritional value and about 3x more sodium.

All developing countries provide quite high quality care to their citizens.

ps
crappy health care = government's denying the existence of AIDS, children dying of dysentery or malnutrition, throwing the mentally ill into insane asylum's etc...

I'm pretty sure you dont mean "developing countries". That term really is a sugar coated pejorative term used for the 3rd world. So really, developing countries deliver terrible medical care, if any at all.

 

[seelee]

The US has a more individualistic, profit oriented value system where public/private healthcare is much more acceptable to the public (regardless of its efficacy).

Here you imply that a universal health care program would be more acceptable despite the fact that it would be less efficient. That is how I interpret the "regardless of its efficacy" part. What it sounds like your saying is that it is better to have a "fair" health care system that has low efficacy, than the current U.S. system. I disagree. While I admit that the U.S. system is in serious need of an overhaul, I am unconvinced that a universal plan would be better.

Another aspect, I don't have numbers available, but I wonder, how many medical innovations have resulted from the American system that the rest of the world takes advantage of? How many have come out of Canada or France? I am willing to take a leap and say that the majority have come from the US. If the US were to move to a system like Canada or France, not only would Americans suffer from the lack of innovation, but so would the rest of the world.

Oh, and you can call me nationalist if you want, I actually appreciate it. I am a patriot. I hope you are too. I am sick of this notion that we have to be ashamed of our country. Further more, if you don't see freedom in being a factor in US's rapid rise to dominance over the past century, then what do you attribute it to?

You suggest that these are separate issues, but I only see healthcare as a symptom of a much larger problem. That problem is the departure from principles of hard work, self-reliance, personal liberty, and yes, freedom. Those values are being replaced by notions of entitlement, victimization, and powerlessness that are propogated by the current administration and the democrat party.

One more thing, if you want to refute me, please don't just whine about how you don't like my arguments. Give me something with substance.

 

[seelee]

To put the record straight I don't think the rich are "evil" which you blatantly implied.

I did not imply it. I said it explicitly. The left constantly tries to convince the "average joe" that the reason they are where they are is because the "evil" oil companies, or the "evil" bank CEO's stole their money from them.

If the government must force healthcare to be universal then, why not any other industry? Why not have the government control everything? Where is the line? Further more, if the rich are not evil, who gets punished in a socialist society? How do you expect to create wealth when there is no incentive to get rich? Believe it or not, but the majority of millionaires in the US are not born into money, they are self-made first generation. How often do you think that will happen in a socialist society? Why would anyone want to take a risk and start a new company or try something new when they are guaranteed a job out of college that they can never get fired from?

I realize that Canada is not socialist (yet). But that is the push, and that is the trend that is being felt in the US, and universal health care is just a part of it.

 

[futuredo32]

What is the reference you are using for "crappy health care"? Your post is way to vague. All developing countries provide quite high quality care to their citizens. You seem to be implying that the healthcare in countries where people don't "pay" for it is poor quality, without any reference or anything to back up your assertion. We both know that your assertion is untrue so I suggest your post a retraction.

ps
crappy health care = government's denying the existence of AIDS, children dying of dysentery or malnutrition, throwing the mentally ill into insane asylum's etc...

Perhaps developing countries don't deny AIDS and maybe they don't utilize insane asylums, but kids do die of malnutrition and other very treatable diseases in developing countries. Your assertion is untrue.

 

[medisforme]

Perhaps developing countries don't deny AIDS and maybe they don't utilize insane asylums, but kids do die of malnutrition and other very treatable diseases in developing countries. Your assertion is untrue.

You ever heard of a country called South Africa, their leader has denied the existence of AIDS, the new deputy leader of the ruling party has commented that taking a shower after unsafe sex can prevent AIDS (he has been charged with rape btw). So don't you ever dare say what I say is untrue, this stuff is happening in our world as we speak (your ignorance isn't really surprising).
Another country called Paraguay in South America. Try googling their national psychiatric hospital (I worked there for one year).
There is nothing untrue of what I wrote.

 

[medisforme]

I realize that Canada is not socialist (yet). But that is the push, and that is the trend that is being felt in the US, and universal health care is just a part of it.

Considering that our present government is WAY TO THE RIGHT of your present government your comment shows how completely ignorant you are of current world issues. Do us a favour and actually look up the political stances of present governments before making foolish comments.

 

[medisforme]

A few random comments:
Who is going to have to provide the coverage for those uninsured to make the US universal? The gov't. Any health care system that is gov't controlled is socialized. quote]

Ok give me a working defintion of socialism (which has been explained ad nauseam on these forums) and tell me how government controlled health care = socialism.

This is getting extremely tiring. You have absolutely no idea what socialism means or what it represents. All you are doing is approaching this from the argument that ......government = evil.

I respect and appreciate your view point (government doen't always make the best decisions) and admit that (while I don't agree) it is a valid argument. However, government intervention doesn't equal socialism. Please get that into your head.

 

[Instatewaiter]

Ok give me a working defintion of socialism (which has been explained ad nauseam on these forums) and tell me how government controlled health care = socialism.

This is getting extremely tiring. You have absolutely no idea what socialism means or what it represents. All you are doing is approaching this from the argument that ......government = evil.

I respect and appreciate your view point (government doen't always make the best decisions) and admit that (while I don't agree) it is a valid argument. However, government intervention doesn't equal socialism. Please get that into your head.

Please re-read my post. Socialism and socialized health care are essentially the same thing. Read the link below. It should help clear some things up for you. You will see that you and I fall on the two opposing definitions of socialized health care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine

 

[futuredo32]

You ever heard of a country called South Africa, their leader has denied the existence of AIDS, the new deputy leader of the ruling party has commented that taking a shower after unsafe sex can prevent AIDS (he has been charged with rape btw). So don't you ever dare say what I say is untrue, this stuff is happening in our world as we speak (your ignorance isn't really surprising).
Another country called Paraguay in South America. Try googling their national psychiatric hospital (I worked there for one year).
There is nothing untrue of what I wrote.

Did you not say that developing countries didn't provide "crappy health care "and then defined your idea of what "crappy health care" is?
Here's your post-

What is the reference you are using for "crappy health care"? Your post is way to vague. All developing countries provide quite high quality care to their citizens. You seem to be implying that the healthcare in countries where people don't "pay" for it is poor quality, without any reference or anything to back up your assertion. We both know that your assertion is untrue so I suggest your post a retraction.

ps
crappy health care = government's denying the existence of AIDS, children dying of dysentery or malnutrition, throwing the mentally ill into insane asylum's etc...

So, are you arguing your earlier post against yourself? One of those posts is clearly incorrect. Perhaps you confused yourself by first using "developing" and then using "developed?" (Your initial post used the word developing and then you edited that post to change developing to developed.) So, now that we have that straight, back to the topic at hand............................

 

[MOHS_01]

At one point in my life I said time and again, "the most dangerous doc is the one who neither understands nor appreciates his/her limitations".... I see now that it must be amended to include those who are well intentioned, wishing for a life change, much too vocal, and, quite often, finding themselves on the wrong side of right, who will willingly and forcefully advocate for changes that will prove detrimental to quality and innovation, all in the name of social doctrine....

Socialism is a concept, a philosophy, a doctrine; like most, it does not lend itself well to succinct definitions. If your understanding goes no further than Wiki or M-W definitions, then you really should not argue on the point lest you expose the inadequacies of either comprehension prowess or knowledge base. Government controlled healthcare is socialistic in intent, whether its proponents wish to acknowledge that inconvenient fact or not.

 

[seelee]

So don't you ever dare say what I say is untrue, this stuff is happening in our world as we speak (your ignorance isn't really surprising).

Congratulations. You have totally exposed your immaturity. You may have not discovered this yet, but it is possible to disagree with another person without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

And what's more. I still think that what you say is untrue. What are you going to do about it.

 

[niranjan162]

A few random comments:
Who is going to have to provide the coverage for those uninsured to make the US universal? The gov't. Any health care system that is gov't controlled is socialized. quote]

Ok give me a working defintion of socialism (which has been explained ad nauseam on these forums) and tell me how government controlled health care = socialism.

This is getting extremely tiring. You have absolutely no idea what socialism means or what it represents. All you are doing is approaching this from the argument that ......government = evil.

I respect and appreciate your view point (government doen't always make the best decisions) and admit that (while I don't agree) it is a valid argument. However, government intervention doesn't equal socialism. Please get that into your head.

There's a difference between intervention and complete control.

And while government may not = evil, it certainly does not =ethics

 

[Pharmavixen]

Another aspect, I don't have numbers available, but I wonder, how many medical innovations have resulted from the American system that the rest of the world takes advantage of? How many have come out of Canada or France? I am willing to take a leap and say that the majority have come from the US. If the US were to move to a system like Canada or France, not only would Americans suffer from the lack of innovation, but so would the rest of the world.

Canadian medical innovations - a partial list:

1907 First bronchoscopy performed. (McGill University Health Centre Research Institute — Montreal, Quebec)

1908 Installation of the first milk pasteurization plant in Canada, 30 years before it becomes mandatory. This all but eliminates diseases transmitted by unpasteurized milk like tuberculosis, salmonella, and e.coli. Pasteurization dramatically decreases infant mortality in Canada. (The Hospital for Sick Children — Toronto, Ontario)

1912 First surgical treatment of tuberculosis. (McGill University Health Centre Research Institute — Montreal, Quebec)
1922 First clinical use of insulin for diabetes in human patients. (University Health Network — Toronto, Ontario)

1930 Development of a new infant cereal that later becomes famous internationally as "pablum." This fortified cereal (the first of its kind) significantly reduces death from malnutrition. (The Hospital for Sick Children — Toronto, Ontario)

1933 First excision of the entire lung performed (pneumonectomy). (McGill University Health Centre Research Institute — Montreal, Quebec)

1939 Invention of the corneal splitting knife (still standard in surgery to reduce pressure in glaucoma). (McGill University Health Centre Research Institute — Montreal, Quebec)

1948 Development of the first artificial kidney machine. (Lawson Health Research Institute — London, Ontario)

Okay; some more recent ones:

2005 Developed the world's first upper respiratory viral panel test that can accurately identify all respiratory viruses including various flu strains including H5N1 and the SARS Coronavirus. (St. Joseph's Healthcare – Hamilton, Ontario)

2005 In the first trial of its kind in the world, researchers begin treating prostate cancer using a 3-D image-guided radiation therapy device that was developed in Canada. This non-surgical technique allows oncologists to visualize the exact position of the target and deliver precise external beam radiation therapy. (Sunnybrook & Women's Research Institute — Toronto, Ontario)

2005 Key discovery in Type-1 Diabetes proves the repair process is present within the pancreas during disease development. Understanding the repair process could be the key to successful treatment. (Ottawa Health Research Institute — Ottawa, Ontario)

2005 Study determines that a specific enzyme, known as pro-protein convertase 4 (PC4) may be responsible for fetal growth restriction, the second leading cause of infant mortality in the developed world. Knowledge may lead to screening for the defective enzyme early in the pregnancy and provide the ability to monitor the pregnancy more closely. (Ottawa Health Research Institute — Ottawa, Ontario)

And finally...

2006 First curative therapy for Huntington Disease in a mouse model (Provincial Health Services Authority/BC Children's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia)

I skipped over a lot; it's a looooong list.

 

[MOHS_01]

OK, Foxy Lady , you supplied half of a comparative equation... care to equally research the other half? Point is, what seelee stated is correct -- it does not say that no innovations have been born in foreign lands, only that the U.S. has been the predominant source for innovation. If you include the research dollars, private money that went to drug and device development that is financed here but sold (at much lower prices) to the remainder of the world, you would accept rather quickly that the "inferior, broken, costly American system" has financed the worldwide technological expansion in large part.

 

[Instatewaiter]

Canadian medical innovations - a partial list:

1907 First bronchoscopy performed. (McGill University Health Centre Research Institute — Montreal, Quebec)
The first bronchoscopy was actually performed by a german named Gustav Killian in 1897. FAIL


1912 First surgical treatment of tuberculosis. (McGill University Health Centre Research Institute — Montreal, Quebec)

1933 First excision of the entire lung performed (pneumonectomy). (McGill University Health Centre Research Institute — Montreal, Quebec)

# 1895: first pneumonectomy in multiple stages by William Macewen on a patient with tuberculosis and emphysema
# 1931: first successful pneumonectomy in two stages by Rudolph Nissen on a patient with crush injury to the thorax. FAIL

1922 First clinical use of insulin for diabetes in human patients. (University Health Network — Toronto, Ontario)
true. PASS

1948 Development of the first artificial kidney machine. (Lawson Health Research Institute — London, Ontario)
1943: The first practical artificial kidney was developed during World War II by the Dutch physician Willem Kolff. FAIL

I dont feel like looking other stuff up.

 

[medisforme]

Did you not say that developing countries didn't provide "crappy health care "and then defined your idea of what "crappy health care" is?
Here's your post-
So, are you arguing your earlier post against yourself? One of those posts is clearly incorrect. Perhaps you confused yourself by first using "developing" and then using "developed?" (Your initial post used the word developing and then you edited that post to change developing to developed.) So, now that we have that straight, back to the topic at hand............................

you are correct. i noticed that error a day after I wrote it.

 

[seelee]

I dont feel like looking other stuff up.

Zing!

 

[meister]

Stop trying to convince all of the dittoheads up in this thread that everyone deserves access to some level of healthcare and that it is in everyone's best interest that people not be at the edge of a cliff ready to be pushed into bankruptcy by a sudden medical problem. Medical bills certainly aren't one of if not the #1 cause of personal bankruptcies, and also I love Ayn Rand and believe in social darwinism.

Oh also I breathe out of my mouth and love to invade other countries for no reason. Thanks.

PS I dare anyone in this thread who literally thinks that extending access to healthcare to all citizens is socialism to try being poor for a bit and see what it's like. Most of you haven't got a ****ing clue.

 

[seelee]

Dare accepted. I am poor. My wife and I have 3 children and we make under 25K a year. My parents were poor. My dad worked minimum wage jobs until I was a sophmore in high school when he graduated with a rad tech certificate. We bought our clothes from thrift stores and we ate rice and beans everyday.

I also lived in Brazil among "real" poor people. I saw the miracle of socialized health care there.

My parents worked hard, as do I. One of the reasons I am going into medicine is so that I break out of the poverty cycle and create a better life for my children (insert cliche here).

I am not a victim of society. My opportunities are only limited by what I can do. I started out poor, but the amazing thing about this country is that you don't have to stay that way if you work hard.

I would rather work hard and earn what I get than demand from other hardworking people to give me what they have worked for. I would rather work hard and earn what I get than support the government in plundering the property of a minority group in the united states.

I may be poor, but I have self-respect. Everything I have in this life I have earned.

Universal healthcare may not be socialism per se, but the principle is the same. Take property from those who earn it and distribute it to those who don't. If anyone but the government did that it would be illegal.

What about the end result? This government will continue to boost benefits, add beurocracy, and generally bloat the system until it becomes a festering cancer that utterly collapses the economy. Want an example? Check out the Education system? Check out the VA hospital. Check out Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the list goes on. None of it works the way it is supposed to, and none of is sustainable in the long term. And I am supposed to smile and hand over control of the medical industry to them??? At least with the current system, someone may go bankrupt but he will at least get treated.

I have not heard anyone on this thread defend the current third-party payer system, and neither do I. But, I have heard many options that are both equitible and sustainable in the long term. The catch is that these programs would require people to accept responsibility for their own health rather than forcing them to do it at gunpoint. Since I support freedom and liberty. I would prefer the former.

 

[AFSmiley]

Stop trying to convince all of the dittoheads up in this thread that everyone deserves access to some level of healthcare and that it is in everyone's best interest that people not be at the edge of a cliff ready to be pushed into bankruptcy by a sudden medical problem. Medical bills certainly aren't one of if not the #1 cause of personal bankruptcies, and also I love Ayn Rand and believe in social darwinism.

Oh also I breathe out of my mouth and love to invade other countries for no reason. Thanks.

PS I dare anyone in this thread who literally thinks that extending access to healthcare to all citizens is socialism to try being poor for a bit and see what it's like. Most of you haven't got a ****ing clue.

Sorry Meister. I just don't get it anymore.

I've brought up sources on this thread that talk about the bankruptcy rate due to medical bills. It happens and it's unfortunate. but it is not as big of a deal as it's painted in the media.

In my view government should have an increased role in some areas. There should be increased regulations/standards on insurance companies.

The rest of your post is emotionally charged jargon. Over and over again, people on this thread assume that those of us who don't want government to take over healthcare are the wealthy and the pampered. I applaud Seelee for sharing his personal story. I don't think I should have to just to unseat your stereotypes.

A good old family doc I know once told me that conservatives generally use facts to argue their point, while liberals use emotions. Reading your post, I'm having trouble keeping that statement from replaying in my head.

If you have ideas, not just cynicism tied with the same old statistics from WHO and OECD, please post and we can have a discussion and hash it out. No one thinks the status quo is perfect, we just disagree on how to improve it.

 

[meister]

Dare accepted. I am poor. My wife and I have 3 children and we make under 25K a year. My parents were poor. My dad worked minimum wage jobs until I was a sophmore in high school when he graduated with a rad tech certificate. We bought our clothes from thrift stores and we ate rice and beans everyday.

And you feel like none of you would have benefited from lowered medical costs...? Or you feel that America is somehow different from everyone else and doesn't need the government to keep profit-seeking corporations in line when it comes to providing health care access to its citizens...?

I also lived in Brazil among "real" poor people. I saw the miracle of socialized health care there.

Who would have thought a poor second world nation would have sub-standard medical care? Try going to any European country or Japan and complain about their public health care. I assure you they are doing just dandy, and no one there has to wonder if they'll need to take out a second mortgage in order to pay for that other kidney or to pay for their child's cancer treatment.

My parents worked hard, as do I. One of the reasons I am going into medicine is so that I break out of the poverty cycle and create a better life for my children (insert cliche here).

That's great, good luck to you.

I would rather work hard and earn what I get than demand from other hardworking people to give me what they have worked for. I would rather work hard and earn what I get than support the government in plundering the property of a minority group in the united states.

The idea behind all of this is to allow everyone to achieve their potential. We already have progressive taxation, so what exactly are you raging against at this point?

Universal healthcare may not be socialism per se, but the principle is the same. Take property from those who earn it and distribute it to those who don't. If anyone but the government did that it would be illegal.

It's called progressive taxation, and we already do it. Adam Smith, the father of modern capitalism, actually argued in favor of it. You were saying?

What about the end result? This government will continue to boost benefits, add beurocracy, and generally bloat the system until it becomes a festering cancer that utterly collapses the economy. Want an example? Check out the Education system? Check out the VA hospital. Check out Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the list goes on. None of it works the way it is supposed to, and none of is sustainable in the long term. And I am supposed to smile and hand over control of the medical industry to them??? At least with the current system, someone may go bankrupt but he will at least get treated.

I'm sorry you bought into the rhetoric, but I rarely hear anyone over the age of 65 complaining about anything except for maybe the terrible program that is medicare part D. 99% of the issues about health care I do hear about are from citizens with private plans who lost their insurance for some stupid reason or their insurance won't pay for a certain procedure.

Sorry Meister. I just don't get it anymore.

I've brought up sources on this thread that talk about the bankruptcy rate due to medical bills. It happens and it's unfortunate. but it is not as big of a deal as it's painted in the media.

In my view government should have an increased role in some areas. There should be increased regulations/standards on insurance companies.

The rest of your post is emotionally charged jargon. Over and over again, people on this thread assume that those of us who don't want government to take over healthcare are the wealthy and the pampered. I applaud Seelee for sharing his personal story. I don't think I should have to just to unseat your stereotypes.

A good old family doc I know once told me that conservatives generally use facts to argue their point, while liberals use emotions. Reading your post, I'm having trouble keeping that statement from replaying in my head.

If you have ideas, not just cynicism tied with the same old statistics from WHO and OECD, please post and we can have a discussion and hash it out. No one thinks the status quo is perfect, we just disagree on how to improve it.

I like how you off-handedly disregard my WHO and OECD statistics and then simultaneously pretend I never presented any statistics to say I am somehow arguing via emotions. Great mental gymnastics there!

Anyway, you've already admitted you like to privatize profits and socialize risks and allow insurance companies to suck all the profit out of young and healthy people only to punt them into public plans once they're sick or poor enough, so at this point it's sort of pointless to argue. You apparently enjoy extravagant executive salaries and corporate profits even if it means quite a few people go without care or die in the streets. It's ok, you reassure yourself, they simply didn't try hard enough, or pull hard enough up on their bootstraps.

At least you agree with more regulation and higher standards for insurance companies. But if we use your logic of big bad government interfering with awesome free market economics (lol), isn't more regulation bad? How can you want more government but only to a certain point? Why not just cut out the horrible greedy bloated middle man?

 

[Squiggy]

National healthcare would be great for businesses, though not so good for healthcare workers or the insurance/hmo industry. As a small business owner, I've had to pay an obscene amount of money to provide employee healthcare. If you look at Canadian businesses, they have lower overhead because they don't have to pay for their employees' healthcare. This is one of the reasons auto companies have shifted manufacturing to Canada.

I find it sickening when those in the medical profession or premeds go Ayn Randish and praise the free economy. If you haven't noticed, The whole medical profession is propped up by the government and society in this country. It's what makes medicine an upper middle class profession:
Many medical schools are government funded and all residencies are government funded as well. Physician work within a monopolistic protectionist bubble because residencies are restricted, keeping supply fixed and government allows this.

If you want a free market, you should get rid of any government control in the industry. Let's go back to medicine before Flexner and allow any medical grad to practice once they've passed their licensing exams. Let's let FMGs into the country and flood the supply of doctors in this country. Malpractice and patient flow would weed out the incompetent. Nationalizing healthcare would be good, but taking government completely out of healthcare would be best.

 

[AFSmiley]

I like how you off-handedly disregard my WHO and OECD statistics and then simultaneously pretend I never presented any statistics to say I am somehow arguing via emotions. Great mental gymnastics there!

Anyway, you've already admitted you like to privatize profits and socialize risks and allow insurance companies to suck all the profit out of young and healthy people only to punt them into public plans once they're sick or poor enough, so at this point it's sort of pointless to argue. You apparently enjoy extravagant executive salaries and corporate profits even if it means quite a few people go without care or die in the streets. It's ok, you reassure yourself, they simply didn't try hard enough, or pull hard enough up on their bootstraps.

At least you agree with more regulation and higher standards for insurance companies. But if we use your logic of big bad government interfering with awesome free market economics (lol), isn't more regulation bad? How can you want more government but only to a certain point? Why not just cut out the horrible greedy bloated middle man?

I will now very calmly respond to you.

I don't disregard those statistics. I think some of those measures are important ways to measure the performance of our industry. What I do disregard is when someone throws them out there and then says: "See! It's because the government doesn't do it! That's why it doesn't work!" There's no thought, no recommendations, no ideas for how to improve those statistics, similar to other calls for action we've seen recently: Hope...Change...Yes we can!

You allude to my ideas without clearly explaining them, so I'll reiterate them.
I favor the government underwriting the medical costs of many of the "uninsurables" to make the industry function like other successful insurance industries in this country. You can choose whether or not to build your house on the beach, drive a Corvette with a bad driving record, etc. You can't decide to be born without Huntington's, PKD, or whatever. I think this is fair and a good compromise. So ya, I guess I do like to "privatize profits"?

Yes increased government regulations in some areas can be good. My understanding right now is that a great deal of overhead/administration costs in the insurance industry right now are due to bickering between providers, hopsitals, and insurance companies. If government can step in and decrease these administration costs by requiring more transparency, I think that's a good thing.

I don't enjoy the idea of other people suffering. No one does. and it is immature to accuse me of such. But, we have to recognize that no system is perfect. No matter what direction the healthcare industry in this country ends up going, someone is going to get screwed. It's a fact of life. What I'm trying to do with my ideas, is make sure that the people who do everything right; the people who hold down a good job, live within their means, pay their taxes, wear their seatbelt, yadda yadda, can afford access to the best healthcare for themselves and their family.

I don't care if CEOs get rich, really I don't. Good for them. It doesn't bother me at all. What does bother me is the lack of access to affordable healthcare for a sizable segment of our population. I don't think those 2 are as easily connected as you make them out to be.

I think my ideas make sense and I'm willing to explain them and take criticism and improve upon them as my education progresses.

 

[MOHS_01]

AFS,

Don't assimilate many of the views espoused by the poster above. He/she obviously possesses a fair intellect, misguided as it may be. Perhaps it is just a Kool-Aid drunk talking, but governmental control, complete or significant, equates to a socialized industry. If you control the payment mechanisms (largely the case already), impose ever increasing regulatory burdens, etc, you have something worse than a socialized system; you have developed a system of indentured servitude. The failure to realize these ultimate conclusion speaks to naivety, which is often a product of age and experience -- two things which are self limited but not always benign.

There are more "American" solutions to the problem... but they would require societal change, which is much more difficult than political change, unfortunately.

 

[meister]

I don't disregard those statistics. I think some of those measures are important ways to measure the performance of our industry. What I do disregard is when someone throws them out there and then says: "See! It's because the government doesn't do it! That's why it doesn't work!" There's no thought, no recommendations, no ideas for how to improve those statistics, similar to other calls for action we've seen recently: Hope...Change...Yes we can!

Nice non-sequitur, but if you actually read the statistics and understand what I've been posting my whole point has been that every other industrialized nation in the world has universal health care, and none of them have blown up in a fiery explosion of communism. If you want America to be some sort of exception, then you both need to explain why that is and why the systems that are in place in other industrialized nations are so horrible. Hint: there are many more models to consider than simply wait times in Canada.

You allude to my ideas without clearly explaining them, so I'll reiterate them.
I favor the government underwriting the medical costs of many of the "uninsurables" to make the industry function like other successful insurance industries in this country. You can choose whether or not to build your house on the beach, drive a Corvette with a bad driving record, etc. You can't decide to be born without Huntington's, PKD, or whatever. I think this is fair and a good compromise. So ya, I guess I do like to "privatize profits"?

So you admit that your ideas about business being propped up by government fiat are...exactly what I posted. Great, I'll let the readers judge that on its merits.

Yes increased government regulations in some areas can be good. My understanding right now is that a great deal of overhead/administration costs in the insurance industry right now are due to bickering between providers, hopsitals, and insurance companies. If government can step in and decrease these administration costs by requiring more transparency, I think that's a good thing.

A great deal of overhead in the insurance industry right now is due largely to the fact that corporations care nothing for the individual and only care about maximizing profit. Why would they not max out overhead to slice more off the top to satisfy stockholders and boards of directors? That is what corporations are supposed to do, except in this particular industry getting away with as much as legally possible does indeed result in thousands dead every single year.

I don't enjoy the idea of other people suffering. No one does. and it is immature to accuse me of such. But, we have to recognize that no system is perfect. No matter what direction the healthcare industry in this country ends up going, someone is going to get screwed. It's a fact of life. What I'm trying to do with my ideas, is make sure that the people who do everything right; the people who hold down a good job, live within their means, pay their taxes, wear their seatbelt, yadda yadda, can afford access to the best healthcare for themselves and their family.

Right, and nothing about our current system leads anyone to believe that any of this is achievable short of drastic change. The experiment failed, private health care is a failure, and there are millions of people, law-abiding hard-working people living within their means, who cannot afford their health insurance for myriad reasons. Instead of defending our current system and insisting it is not fatally flawed but simply suffers from lack of both government oversight and subsidy is a feat of mental kung-fu that sadly many people on the right attempt each and every day.

I don't care if CEOs get rich, really I don't. Good for them. It doesn't bother me at all. What does bother me is the lack of access to affordable healthcare for a sizable segment of our population. I don't think those 2 are as easily connected as you make them out to be.

Well, I don't really care how much someone makes as long as they earn it, and I'm afraid to say the vast majority of CEOs in the finance and health care industries don't really earn their keep. Handing out tens of millions of dollars every year to the same round-robin crew of executives who only lead entire nations into financial calamity do not deserve a ****ing penny, and definitely don't deserve unemployment benefits let alone nice shiny golden parachutes. But that is a debate for another thread and probably another forum.