sv3n

So in cases from 1995 to 1999 the UK was behind most of Europe in spotting cancer sooner...........what's your point? It doesn't prove that a government healthcare system doesn't work........it just says that from '95 to '99 the UK, not all government run healthcare systems just the UK, was behind most of europe in diagnosing cancer at an early stage. It says absolutely nothing about government run healthcare.........as a matter of fact sweden, which had the best survival rate in the article, is a country with government run healthcare. And - ...and you're in violation of your face!

Of course.....the companies would just start making M&M's instead. It's not like the government gives any grants or funding for medical research. Obviously it is in place in Canada right now and while I have no evidence I believe other countries do this as well....................so it's pretty safe to assume that if it works there it would work here too. No. The would be no drugs to sell. P.S. I supposed you have to be 18 to register on dz.com, but it looks like it is not true. ...and you're in violation of your face!

What you are talking about is NOT happening elsewhere. I don't know if France has salary controls on doctor's or not, but if they do, it has been in place for years and years. What you are talking about is slapping salary controls on people who have been working without them for years. You will be requiring them to take a potentially large cut in pay, which is nothing like what's happening in France. Not too far off topic: If you have time, please read this book: Atlas Shrugged, by AYN Rand Sorry, I was still fuming over your price-control ideas In reality, though, salaries are controlled. Sure, any doctor can set up a practice in France, but with nearly all the patients paying through what is essentially one insurance company, the doctor will have to accept whatever payment the provider wishes to pay. Where else will the doctor get customers? It's not quite that simple because there is union representation, negotiations with the government, etc. Read about their system here: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/rodwin/french.html Thanks, that's good info. So it's not just some wild and insane fantasy. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Are you talking to the mirror? Seems to be the case. I know you are, but what am I..............great comeback Tim. You have been already explained that this "numero uno" has no real value, and by changing the criterias or weights you could get any country on the top of that list; for example Zimbabwe most likely will be ranked number one if you put the per-person spending as most important. You have been explained that you cannot just take part of any system, and expect it to work in a different system. It is like taking the engine from Boeing, and putting it in your car in hope to get both the benefits of the Boeing and the benefits of the car. It does not work. 1. what I said was you could take any of the pieces in that study out at your convenience and make whomever you wanted come out on top.......leave the study as a whole and it still remains that the report states the France is number 1. 2. i'm not talking about using parts of a system.......I'm talking about replacing the system. The problem we have right now is that we have a patched together healthcare system rather than one system. when designing anything you don't look at the worst thing possible and design it off of that, you look at the best and move on from there. So could you tell us how much experience you have with French healthcare system? Just to make sure you do understand what you are talking about. the same as you I suspect. This way we could regulate everything. Just tell me what you do, and I'll tell you that the prices you charge (directly or indirectly) are overinflated, and that's the good way to reduce costs if you are just paid $2 per hour. If it's a national epidemic then the government needs to intervene. Exaggeration, gotta love it......that's exactly what I said........."let's pay everybody $2 per hour". Oops. I could understand when such ideas are produced by my 10-year daughter, but it is really strange to hear them from a mature adult. How exactly are you going to "change the national attitude"? Is it something like "being fat is cool" right now? Doesn't anyone already know what makes you fat, and what does not? Yes, they're such strange and silly ideas that the president has panels that suggest such things to him and people write articles about it........oh forgive me. Here's the article just in case you're interested in this silly idea... US Government Not Promoting Healthy Living Says Cancer Panel Featured Article Main Category: Public Health News Article Date: 17 Aug 2007 - 3:00 PDT The US government should be doing more to promote healthy living says a new report from the President's Cancer Panel (PCP) out this week. Cancer kills more than half a million Americans every year, and nearly three times that number are diagnosed annually with the disease. Two thirds of cancer deaths and thosands of new cases could be avoided by changing the lifestyle of Americans: tobacco use and passive smoking account for nearly one third, and unhealthy diets account for another third of all cancer deaths in America today says the PCP. The President's Cancer Panel (PCP) has three members: Lance Armstrong, cancer survivor and campaigner and cycling champion, Dr Margaret L. Kripke, chief academic officer at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, and Dr LaSalle D. Leffall Jr, professor of surgery at Howard University in Washington, who chairs the panel. The PCP was set up in 1971 and meets four times a year to review progress across the nation in the fight to eradicate cancer. Previous reports from the PCP have looked at one particular theme on cancer, this time the panel has taken a deep look at the "macroenvironment" of people's daily lives and the opportunity that government has to make changes that would have a significant impact on the nation's cancer burden. The report says that most federal funding for cancer research is for projects targeted at genetic and biological intervention, looking for ways to interrupt the progress of the disease at the cellular level. However, while acknowledging the importance of this work and saying that it should be supported, the report criticizes the fact that: "It ignores the macroenvironment and the physical, social, and cultural contexts within which food choices, opportunities for physical activity, and tobacco use and smoke exposure occur." Also, the benefits of the currently sponsored research will not be felt by the population at large for decades, while the opportunity to effect social, behavioural and environmental change through policy intervention is here and now. This would make a considerable impact, sooner, in reducing the nation's burden of lung and many other cancers, says the report, especially by focusing more on preventing disease as well as treating it. As an example of how the health system is geared more toward treatment than prevention, the report points out that doctors are trained to treat illness and not prevent it. The health care system is a sick care system and not a well care system. Doctors don't spend enough time with patients helping them to make changes in their lifestyle that would stop them having to visit the doctor so frequently, they only have time to treat the symptoms, resulting in a vicious cycle. The system needs to change to place more emphasis on prevention. The medical insurance system suffers from a similar malaise, says the report. While it covers treatment for acute conditions, other services that offer interventions that promote "wellness or prevent disease, such as counseling, education, outreach, and behavioral or psychosocial interventions" are not covered. The PCP acknowledges and praises the efforts of many government and employer schemes to promote a culture of wellness, but says this is not reaching many millions of Americans who are "living in neighborhoods in which it is unsafe to exercise outdoors and where fresh food access is limited", or who are in part time jobs with no insurance cover, and have fewer opportunities such as access to computers to take advantage of the many IT tools now available, and in many cases their English is poor and the services are not designed for them. Nearly two thirds of Americans are overweight, half of whom are obese. By 2010, this figure is set to be three quarters of the population overweight and one half obese. Obesity is the second leading cause of premature death in the US, tobacco is the first, says the report. Research shows that overall cancer death rates are 50 per cent higher among obese men compared to normal weight men, and more than 60 per cent higher among obese women. In a way these statistics are not surprising, because government policies at all levels have helped to create an environment that makes it hard for Americans to make the right choices, be it in food (healthy food is expensive), exercise (physical education in schools is at an all time low), and as already discussed, the health care system. Poor and ineffective policies, together with insufficient regulation in the marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages have "spawned a culture that struggles to make healthy choices" says the report. Targetting obesity and tobacco are the two main action points the report makes. It suggests a number of opportunities to make changes that would promote a culture of wellness. For instance, changing the way that food is marketed to children, where currently too much junk food is promoted and not enough healthy foods. Another avenue of opportunity is school meals, where breakfasts and lunches are not geared toward healthy eating. Another area where government intervention could make a big difference is to coordinate public health policy with agricultural policy. An example of how this is not currently working to promote healthy living is the heavy subsidizing of food such as corn and soy that are then processed into high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated corn and soybean oils, and other foods known to contribute to obesity and related chronic diseases such as cancer. Where are the subsidies for the healthy food products? An opportunity to "strongly increase support for fruit and vegetable farmers, improve the national food supply, and enhance the health of participants in the national school lunch, food stamp, and Women, Infant, and Children food assistance programs" is about to present itself to the government in the form of the upcoming reauthorization of the Farm Bill (the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002). The report makes a number of other recommendations, including one that may be at odds with President Bush's own views: to increase the tax on tobacco. One of the panel members is reported to have said in a telephone interview with Reuters news agency that perhaps America does not have the political will to protect the health of its citizens. In delivering the report, the panel has urged the President to use the power of his office to empower Americans to make healthy choices and seize this moral obligation to protect the health of the nation. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Could we see some facts on this 1000% inflation? I'd sooner die a couple years early than force the whole economy through 1000% inflation. And I'd wish the same on anyone. I'm starting to suspect there's a numeracy issue here... ...and you're in violation of your face!

That's like saying "Well you could die next week, no healthcare for you" And they still die at the end. So basically the result is the same, no matter are they covered or not. Sure, the person could live in agony, pain or coma several more weeks, but the result is the same - the person dies. Not exactly. The point in the original message was that the people who want such a useless and expensive treatment (i.e. artifically maintaining their "life", and be kept in agony, pain or coma) should be able to pay for that. And it looks reasonable for me if the goal is to cut the costs. ...and you're in violation of your face!

George, George, George of the Jungle watch out for that... Sorry...anyways, I never said the article said it was about brandname or generic drugs. But it's a great example of price regulation and thanks for a lesson on the difference between Generic and Brandname Drugs......it was riveting and informative, it might also prove useful in my future years as a pointless fact to blurt out spontaneously as a factoid. Back to topic, if price regulation was done everywhere.....then companies would be forced to sell the drugs everywhere at a reasonable price..........keeping them honest rather than holding people's lives hostage for more money. PS - no facts were manipulated in the quoting of this article, but thanks for playing and have a nice day. PSS - I will enroll in school next week to become a sex change surgeon and will gladly perform your surgery for half-price. That's a good example of how could you manipulate facts to prove your theory. Just to make sure you understand the article - it talks about brandname drugs, not generics. I'm not sure you understand the difference, so I explain. The drugs, as you probably know, are created by scientists, who work hard, and sometime effortless - just see how long it is taking to create a drug which would kick HIV out of T4 cells. Years and billions of dollars are spent on most brandname drugs, and someone has to pay for that. There is research and testing, which costs a lot. Someone has to pay for that, and that's those who buy brandname drugs. However when you make generics, you do not bear all the costs above. They only spend money on manufacturing, and those costs are a tiny fraction in overall drug cost. Then it might be reasonable to regulate the prices for generics - after all, the people who make it did not spend any money on research and testing. However most generics are cheap anyway, and it doesn't seem to be an issue. So could you tell me, how many new brandname drugs were invented in Canada since 1987, so we could get a clue what they control prices for? So what happens if the company does not agree to "regulated" price, and therefore decides NOT to sell their drug in Canada (and they have all the rights to do it)? It's not impossible. A lot of countries, like Russia and China, already "regulate" the prices for movies, music and software in very similar way. After all, it costs only 15 cents to make a copy of Windows, so it doesn't sound right to pay $150 for it. It is easy to regulate costs on something you did not develop. Sure, when you become a doctor, and provide quality service for a half of price - I'll be your first patient. ...and you're in violation of your face!

I believe it would be naive and irresponsible to simply say "it's not possible" without trying. There is no other option. There is a point where it costs too much to extend life; people have to die at some point in any health care system. Some dollars go further than others. It is unavoidable that some day in your life that each additional dollar won't go as far as the last one. Where is the threshold of bang for buck that you would give up? Given that our budget is finite, we have to make compromises between who gets care and who doesn't -- since the cost of infinite life is infinite your goal of never denying treatment is impossible. It's naive. The numbers from the GAO show we are already beyond that point (notwithstanding even whether it's worth it or not to spend all that money, the economy unconditionally won't output enough to support it beyond the next 30 years or so). We have to pull back from benefits in order to remain solvent in the long run. Do you know what it means for a government to run out of money? Think of Chile in the early 70s, or Zimbabwe today. You may as well insist on the right to be treated on the moon. ...and you're in violation of your face!

You give bullshit theories, ask bullshit questions.....then you're gonna get bullshit answers. If you're going to come up with a better mousetrap so to speak and come up with a new healthcare system then you're going to start with the best model out there and go from there. France being ranked numero uno would seem a good choice then. While some african companies might have ok healthcare, which I for some odd reason doubt and therefore would not choose them as a model basis. That would be like starting a new sports car company and using the Ford Taurus as your base. That's just asinine. Man you gotta read more...........the salaries are part of my point........if they're overinflated then that would be a good way to reduce healthcare costs. If we pay twice as much for health care per person than france who is ranked number one..........that's an issue. If the obesity in the US is part of the problem then, there's something that needs to be done about that.........change of national attitude towards fitness, who know...that's another debate. That's nice that you always comment only the easiest part of the post, and completely ignore everything else, especially the ones which ask tough questions. You should definitely try politics. And African countries are able to have healthcare which is even much cheaper, why didn't you use them as example? Did you take into account the salaries in France (including medical personnel salaries)? Did you take into account the number of overweight people, which greatly increases risks for heart problems, and drives medical costs up? Did you take into account life expectancy, diversity in the nation population? What about real availability of healthcare in France, could you come today to the doctor, and get MRI tomorrow? Yes, but there is a lot of other factors which are necessary for it to work. Again, ex-USSR had even cheaper healthcare comparing to France, as doctors were paid $40 a month (like everyone else). How many doctors in U.S. do you know which would be happy to work for the salary French doctors receive? No, because - you will be surprised - they are already in France. And you are in U.S., so to use French healthcare system you need to fly to France, while they do not. *** If you're going to model your healthcare after someone else's it seems france seems like a good candidate.. The problem is that you cannot just get healthcare model from France, the budget planning from UAE, the military power from US and the military spendings from Netherlands, and combine everything. It will not work. ...and you're in violation of your face!

No, there are other reasons as well. The 60% spending on last three weeks of life seems much more reasonable. Here's a good article on the overinflated price of medication in the US.....Link: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3987/is_200311/ai_n9320625......to my amazement I also found something else in it that everybody says is undoable and just too outrageous. "While drug costs in the United States continue to spiral out of control, other countries have adopted policies to keep prices in check. One nation leading the way in price regulation is Canada, which had the second-highest average price for pharmaceuticals until 1987. Passage of the Patent Act that year established an organization known as the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB), which was charged with overseeing the prices of all patent drugs sold in the country. Since then, average prices for patented medicine have risen less than 1 percent per year - far less than the increases seen in the U.S. over the same time. The PMPRB ensures that the prices of patented drugs are not excessive by controlling introductory drug prices. Specifically, it sets guidelines and reviews drug prices; tracks the price trends of patented drugs and the research and development investments made by pharmaceutical companies; and helps to inform and educate the general public about drug prices. Prices of non-patented drugs (such as generics) are not regulated by the PMPRB. Before a patent drug can be sold in Canada, a pharmaceutical company submits the price of the drug to the board for review. The board uses several tests to determine whether the cost is excessive, including the Reasonable Relationship Test, which considers the association between the strength and price of a medicine in the same or comparable dosages; the Therapeutic Class Comparison Test, which compares the prices of drugs with those that are clinically equivalent and are sold in the same markets at prices the PMPRB considers not excessive; the International Price Comparison Test, which compares the average transaction price with the publicly available transaction prices of the same medicine sold in seven other countries (France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States); and the measurement in change of the consumer price index (CPI) over a specific period of time, which compares the average price of a drug with the CPI-adjusted price." Wow! Somebody has done the impossible and it turns out to be Canada. Everybody bow down come on......... No wonder people go to Canada to get their prescription drugs......the government finally went, "hey, you guys are ripping people off through overinflated prices....that's not good for the people" and bitchslapped them back into place. Poor company, they're still only making billions and all people can now afford the medications. What a concept. I'd let you, and others, who complain about very high salaries of the doctors, to become doctors themselves, and provide the same services for less money. Then, after you have 10-20 years of successful practice, you will have every right to tell us that the doctor salaries are overinflated, and the doctors should be paid less. Before that the value of your words is close to zero. Sounds like you're letting me have it..........are you gonna start soon? ...and you're in violation of your face!

I suppose the question would be how they came about with the ranking criteria, was it completed through surveys of what was important to the population or where did it come from? What other tweaks did you make to get that list? One could leave out whatever they wanted and make their chosen country move to the top of the list. Yes, they were ranked #1. We were #37. Ever wonder why? One of the ranking criteria "Fairness of Financial Contribution", accounts for 25% of the score used in the rankings. That criterion is essentially a test that asks "How much variation is there in the amount that households pay, as a % of income, for health care in the country?" If every household pays the same amount, as a % of income, each year, like France, they get a perfect score, guaranteed. Now, looking at the US, some pay for healthcare out of their pocket, and most have insurance, but NOTE THAT NOT EVERYONE USES THE SAME INSURANCE COMPANY OR PLAN, some use HMO's, some have high deductibles, some low, etc. This means that there will be considerable variation among households in the US, guaranteeing a low score. EVEN IF EVERY HOUSEHOLD IN THE US HAD INSURANCE, THEY WOULD ALL NEED TO PAY THE SAME AMOUNT TO GET A HIGH SCORE, EVEN IF THE COST WAS 99% OF THEIR INCOME. This pretty much requires that everyone use the same insurance company, and pay premiums based on income (perfect for a government income tax). So what does the "fairness" criteria really test for? It determines if a country uses a government mandated and controlled healthcare system funded by an income tax. That's pretty much it. So how important is it to WHO that every country use a government controlled healthcare system? It's 25% of the score. That is the same weight given to "quality" (ability to treat, #doctors/patient, safety, availabilty of hospitals, cleanliness, ...). So it's just as important in the WHO study to have a government controlled system as it is to get decent mediacal treatment. Which should be more important? Just to show what WHO thinks is important, look at this: "Responsiveness" is the criteria WHO used to examine the following: dignity, autonomy, prompt attention, confidentiality, quality of basic amenities, and access to social support. What weight did WHO apply to "responsiveness?" They gave it a 12.5% weighting, half that of fairness. How would you weight "responsiveness" compared to "fairness". BTW, US ranked #1 on this. Take the "fairness" score out of the equation for all country's and what happens? The US jumps to 15th. France moves to about 6th. Does the US system still suck? Is France still the best in the world? Look at this: A country could have no doctors, no hospitals, etc., and every household spending 100% of their income on helthcare, they would have a perfect score for 25% of their total. The point I'm trying to make is that relying on the WHO rankings without really knowing what they looked at is folly, and thus deserving of cavil. Regarding the example tweak above where I removed the "fairness" criteria, by making a couple more tweak, none more unreasonable than that, the following will result: 1. United States 2. Switzerland 3. Luxembourg 4. Denmark 5. Germany 6. Japan 7. Canada 8. Norway 9. Netherlands 10. Sweden Remember, WHO decided what should be important in healthcare. What is important to you? ...and you're in violation of your face!

So what about the people who ARE treated, but still dying (and it takes 60% of the overall healthcare costs to cover that treatment)? If they're getting treated, then they're covered............and your point is that people who can afford insurance can get treated and the people that can't afford it are just sol? ...and you're in violation of your face!

It's called welfare and it's already in place. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Sorry, you miss understood me............I wasn't implying that other countries put caps on pay for doctors....I was simply trying to state that if healthcare costs are lower in other countries like france which has a very well ranked system then it's possible here too. What you are talking about is NOT happening elsewhere. I don't know if France has salary controls on doctor's or not, but if they do, it has been in place for years and years. What you are talking about is slapping salary controls on people who have been working without them for years. You will be requiring them to take a potentially large cut in pay, which is nothing like what's happening in France. Not too far off topic: If you have time, please read this book: Atlas Shrugged, by AYN Rand ...and you're in violation of your face!

You can take a lot out of that.........to help to exist. So now you're helping the health of the population to exist. How would you do that? Through healthcare. pro·mote /prəˈmoʊt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pruh-moht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used with object), -mot·ed, -mot·ing. 1. to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further: to promote world peace. 2. to advance in rank, dignity, position, etc. (opposed to demote). 3. Education. to put ahead to the next higher stage or grade of a course or series of classes. 4. to aid in organizing (business undertakings). 5. to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), esp. through advertising or other publicity. 6. Informal. to obtain (something) by cunning or trickery; wangle. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Origin: 1350–1400; ME promoten < L prōmōtus, ptp. of prōmovére to move forward, advance. See pro-1, motive] —Related forms pro·mot·able, adjective pro·mot·a·bil·i·ty, noun —Synonyms 1. abet, back, forward, advance, assist, help, support. 2. elevate, raise, exalt. —Antonyms 1. discourage, obstruct. 2. demote, degrade, abase. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source pro·mote (prə-mōt') Pronunciation Key tr.v. pro·mot·ed, pro·mot·ing, pro·motes To raise to a more important or responsible job or rank. To advance (a student) to the next higher grade. To contribute to the progress or growth of; further. See Synonyms at advance. To urge the adoption of; advocate: promote a constitutional amendment. To attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity: commercials promoting a new product. To help establish or organize (a new enterprise), as by securing financial backing: promote a Broadway show. [Middle English promoten, from Old French promoter, from Latin prōmovēre, prōmōt- : prō-, forward; see pro-1 + movēre, to move; see meuə- in Indo-European roots.] pro·mot'a·bil'i·ty n., pro·mot'a·ble adj. (Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source promote 1387, "to advance (someone) to a higher grade or office," from L. promotus, pp. of promovere "move forward, advance," from pro- "forward" + movere "to move" (see move). General sense of "to further the growth or progress of (anything)" is from 1515. Promoter "one who promotes" is from 1450; financial sense of "one who leads in forming a company" is from 1876; sense of "one who organizes sporting or entertainment events" is attested from 1936. Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper WordNet - Cite This Source promote verb 1. contribute to the progress or growth of; "I am promoting the use of computers in the classroom" 2. give a promotion to or assign to a higher position; "John was kicked upstairs when a replacement was hired"; "Women tend not to advance in the major law firms"; "I got promoted after many years of hard work" [ant: break] 3. make publicity for; try to sell (a product); "The salesman is aggressively pushing the new computer model"; "The company is heavily advertizing their new laptops" [syn: advertise] 4. be changed for a superior chess or checker piece 5. change a pawn for a better piece by advancing it to the eighth row, or change a checker piece for a more valuable piece by moving it to the row closest to your opponent ...and you're in violation of your face!

See my first post: 1) End-of-life care - EXPENSIVE. 2) Drugs - Expensive 3) Variance in population creating more diversity of medical problems. Now, how do we solve these problems? Solving them through leaving people uncovered is not right. You are right that end of life care is expensive, but I think our elders deserve better than "so gramps, get your ass out on the street" they helped build this country and many have faught for this country. Drugs are expensive, but since our drug costs are higher than anywhere else in the world....one would assume you would take a look to see if things are "inflated" by the companies and deal with that appropriately. People need the medications and if they're cheaper elsewhere why are the not as cheap here. Your theory on closing the borders to alleviate the diverse problems that we have because of the diverse population that already lives here is inane and pointless. Those people already live here.......closing the border will have no direct impact on the different number of medical conditions in this country. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Easy. Reduce demand. Take away subsidies and "rights" to health care. Watch prices fall as doctors and hospitals have to compete for patients, and patients become unwilling to overspend because it costs their own money to consume health care instead of coming out of some invisible gov't ledger. If you kept the difference you'd see to it yourself that you got the $4000 knee surgery instead of the $100,000 one. Likewise if you got to keep the difference between the $1600 / mo insurance plan that gets you the $100k treatment and the $200 / mo plan that gets you the $4k job. Seeing as $100,000 surgeries would go out of style quick, the health care industry would reorient itself towards the affordable and the effective. Like ordinary markets throughout the economy. Have you ever seen a price chart when you discussed treatment with your doctor or at a hospital? Hospitals will often refuse to reveal their price structures in advance of treatment. Nobody asks anyway. If you were spending the same amount on a house or a car or a computer you'd walk out if you couldn't see the price. They know that patients don't care because patients have practically no incentives to care. The problem with that is you would have people dying because they can't get treated. ...and you're in violation of your face!

It really is. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."........remember this? welfare: "the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being: to look after a child's welfare; the physical or moral welfare of society." link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/welfare ...and you're in violation of your face!

Correct........except that when you're talking about large houses and private jets, you're talking about luxuries. When you're talking about healthcare, then you're talking about someone's life. If a government is supposed to take care of it's people then it needs to do something about that. ...and you're in violation of your face!

So, you think that the medical field should do it just because they are feeling altruistic? I dare say that there are very few people in the medical field who are truly 'called' to the profession. How many doctors would we have if they knew that they had to invest the time and money required, out of their own pocket, and then be told by the govt. that they were only allowed to make $70,000 a year. Maybe we could get the govt. to insist that those teaching in the universities only get to make $30,000 a year. After all, we have to cut costs. How about the industries that build all of the different equipment? Should they only make a 1% profit? Do you see where this is going? The next thing you know, we've got unqualified illegal aliens installing oxygen systems in the hospitals. But, hey, we are keeping down the price of health care. I'd leave that up to better men than myself. Obviously it's possible if it's happening elsewhere. One would have to take an indepth look at what prices were higher and why.......then work out a systematic way of getting our prices down. ...and you're in violation of your face!

I have already asked you - when you are trying to regulate "prices", you are regulating salaries. Do you want YOUR salary to be regulated as well if someone (like a homeless or a McDonalds employee) thinks you earn too much? I don't disagree with you there......that's a hard road to follow. But if the reason our healthcare prices are so high is as plain as the prices are overinflated..........then how do you suggest we bring them down to a reasonable level? ...and you're in violation of your face!

Wow......that's irrational thinking at it's best. Sounds like you're back peddling. Obviously, France is able to have healthcare and they're ranked number 1........also their healthcare rates are those provided. So........it's not a wild fantasy, it's working right now. Do you think people in france pay to fly to france everytime that they go to a doctor? Talk about wild right tangent....are you still enjoying the crack pipe? If you're going to model your healthcare after someone else's it seems france seems like a good candidate..........they're ranked number one and their healthcare costs are half per person of ours. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Do you have any idea what the long-term costs of a lifetime of anti-rejection medication are? Besides just the medications, the ER trips and folks needing intensive care for sinus infection? I don't buy that argument one bit. Bingo. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Take your same example in the quoted post and apply to someone with cancer. Who has the most chance of surviving it, the rich guy who can spend all the money in the world or the poor guy who can't afford insurance? I'm not saying basic healthcare wont help, but people get that right now anyways...........right hospitals are forbidden to turn people away. So with that standard in place..........there's still 18,000 people a year dying. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Exactly, if you're rich you get good healthcare where everything is covered, if you're not bugger off if it's more than a sprain we don't like yer kind round these parts. That's bs. While I agree that at least basic coverage is an improvement....it's not the solution to the problem. If 18,000 people are dying a year right now because of lack of insurance it would still be same under your system. Since there is no long-term or preventative care they'd still be screwed unless they had money, which makes people special and priviledged enough to see a doctor and get properly treated. ...and you're in violation of your face!