sv3n

Interesting thought..........two outcomes that come to mind. 1. healthcare prices drop and we live happily ever after 2. healthcare prices stay and it becomes a commodity for the rich ...and you're in violation of your face!

So do I. But do you think government can do that? Do you trust Bush to manage a balanced health care system? What do you think would happen? A few people would make a lot of money and a lot of people would die. But then again there's only a little time left of that. We'll see what happens in the upcoming election. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Can't agree with you........it leads back to the same thing. You're making healthcare only for the people that have money or at least enough of it for insurance. A lot of people don't have an extra $12,000 a year to spend on healthcare and that's where your route wouldn't work. Example....liver disease....so you'll cover the basic medical care, but not the transplant. so in the long run you would spend more money. The person would end up back in the emergency room again and again until they got the transplant. Or if denied that they would die. Same trap..........the rich will be fine and the not so rich will suffer. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Agreed. Governments assign $ values to human life all the time. The WHO healthcare report does it too. I'm not saying that your idea is feasible, though. ...and you're in violation of your face!

I think people remember what was written. I suggested some rather draconian ways to keep healthcare costs under control, such as limiting end-of-life care, closing borders to limit populations and therefore the diseases they get, etc. Seeing as how end-of-life measures are typically responsible for more than half of a person's lifetime health care outlay, it would seem to make sense that if you want to control a LARGE portion of healthcare costs, you eliminate this spending. See, when you strt thinking of the "best interests" of a "society," and stop thinking about individuals within, it is CLEARLY in the best interests of "society" that those members who are a "drag" on the society are neutralized. Take a look at the inventory of top notch military weapons. The F-14 has capabilities that are STILL unmatched, but the cost of maintenance compared to the capabilites of the F/A-18 means that the F-14 gets scrapped. It takes too much money and resources to maintain it. You don't think that governments look at people this way? Or WILL look at people this way? It will. It will make its decisions about where to direct its money, and it will not be directing its money towards people who don't pay taxes. You're missing the importance of balance.......those people that you're talking about cutting off are the people that helped build this country, I think they deserve a little bit more respect than that. You would be better off cutting costs and keeping people covered. By cutting costs in half, you still drop down to 50% and they're still covered, everybody is happy.....you can make the choice to not get resucitated and they can choose to be. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Bingo......the people that are well off can afford it, but the people that aren't well off can't. Really it boils down to one of two decisions: 1. we cover everybody and act as a society 2. we cover only ourselves and act individually I think there would be great pride in having a country that everybody is healthy in and acts as a group rather than only worrying about themselves. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Dude....you gotta read some stuff before you reply. Read the last couple of pages of posts. We would actually spend half or less than half of what we do now if we were to go down the right path and cover everybody. No, that's backwards. You lose rights when you suffer a communicable disease--you can be quarantined against your will. By making healthcare a right we'll just pour more good money after bad. The projected costs of our present healthcare obligations are already unmanageable. We cannot afford more, we can only afford less. This means, consequently, that the poor will get the shaft. If it's any consolation, the wealthy will pay more too. The alternatives are worse. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Holy cow man, if I didn't know you were a lawyer I would have know it after reading that. Some of the thinking in that rant just boggles the mind. The system of UHC that you advocate sounds like something the old USSR would come up with, not something we would consider in the USA. ...and you're in violation of your face!

They have that in place now...it's called "actual and reasonable costs" and is what the insurance pays for a procedure. that's right, the insurance companies have that on their side......so here's the problem. We privatize the whole thing and get rid of insurance according to Bush's plan we'd have tax-free saving accounts to save money for our healthcare...........the problem is that while the insurance companies get that break, your uninsured patient gets charged the high amount. Dude - rationing is ALREADY happening in SHC countries - if you think that it's miraculously not going to happen here, you're being foolish. We can't control what's happening elsewhere.....but we can control what's happening here. Regulate the prices, bring healthcare down to a reasonable level, and make sure that everyone is covered. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Such as? I don't believe that your statement is correct, if one where to follow france's example for instance then it would be $2700 per year per person......which would equal $225 a month. One study that I read stated that the main problem with the US healthcare was just that the prices were too high, they were overinflated. So lower the cost through regulation and then move on from there. ...and you're in violation of your face!

{{Deleted - the whole thread is rehashed nonsense}} Yeah...this isn't really moving anywhere. People aren't reading or remembering what was written and just getting worked up for no reason. This shouldn't be an emotional issue. It should just be common sense...........everybody has the right to be healthy, it's not a priviledge for only the wealthy. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Which is why I suggested that the way these costs can be controlled is to ban assisted living facilities and ban all extraordinary measures on geriatric patients. How do you think things get price capped? Guess what? That's "FU - you're not good enough to get health care." Also note that thoughout history, price caps cause shortages of supply. Thus, "FU - it's not that you're not good enough, it's just that you don't have healthcare." Your claim i that healthcre in the US is rationed by price. You are merely arguing to ration it in a different way. You're talking about leaving people uncovered for things that you don't believe in .............. there's one problem in that, the your belief thing. Your making other people's choices limited through your beliefs. I'm suggesting a cap on prices.......... "A survey by a large insurance company showed that prices charged by hospitals vary dramatically. For example, a hysterectomy ranged from $2,200 to $37,000, and a total knee replacement ranged from $3,000 to $119,400." .........so that knee replace would get capped at fair price, that price being chosen by a panel of doctor's and budget specialists. In this care for instance the knee replacement......if one hospital can charge $3,000 then so can the next.....but through the panel they might decide on a price cap of $15,000. The problem with our current system is that if you're uninsured, like if you have a medical tax-free savings account, the hospital would instantly charge you the higher amount. Like I said..........do you have $119,000 laying around.....not unless you're rich. What are the healthcare companies gonna start offing doctors to keep the supply down.....I don't think so. No rationing here........the exact opposite. Everybody gets covered. Right now it's rationed so that you're forced to by insurance on the fear that you might get sick.....so you pay the high premiums or gamble with your financial stability. ...and you're in violation of your face!

I'm not going over all this........I'm not ready to write a thesis on healthcare. False.....if you for instance we're to take the amount from france of $2,736 and times it per population of 300,000,000 which would be $820.8 billion. But the thing you didn't read was that only $2,080 of that came from the government........that brings the amount required down to $624 billion. Right now we spend $1.9 trillion dollars on healthcare each year..........we just saved $1.276 trillion dollars. And then we have the excess from the cut military budget......we're now rich and can afford to put that money into other programs like public schools. Plus one thing you didn't figure out.....somewhere around 60% of americans have healthcare through their job.....their emloyer pays half of that. If the average family of 4 pays $12,000 a year for insurance......that means you would get a payraise of $6,000 depending on how things worked out. This is affordable and would be a positive thing for this country.....everybody has the right to be healthy, it shouldn't be a priviledge. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Even if the.. No, I don't care whether or not they would be bankrupt. Ain't the point. Re: Medicare/Medicade being needed, they already are a US healthcare system. Do you think they operate any more efficiently than the private portion? I'd bet not. Parks and museums have nothing to do with it. True, but what do doctors and nurses have to do with it? They are not the "problem", if there even is a problem. ---- There is no scenario that I can imagine where an immediate 1/2 reduction cost would be needed. It's totally nuts. Can't answer. Like I said, I am not convinced that there is a crisis going on. Do you think I have any health care coverage right now, and am just being uncaring? No, I have no coverage currently. Can't afford it. I could barely afford to go to the doctor tomorrow, but it is not the role of the government to take care of me, especially when it would actually be the rest of the country being forced under threat of arrest to pay for it. "Forced under threat of arrest" is just a realistic way of saying "taxes". What do doctors have to do with healthcare....well for instance the provide the healthcare and send you a bill for their services.....I would say that alone puts them a little closer than the local park. Here's a quote from an artice that gives some insight as to why we spend so much on healthcare and also a good thought on why the private tax free healthcare savings accounts would have a hard time working....... "A survey by a large insurance company showed that prices charged by hospitals vary dramatically. For example, a hysterectomy ranged from $2,200 to $37,000, and a total knee replacement ranged from $3,000 to $119,400. Presumably, the cost of these procedures (what it actually costs a hospital to perform the procedure) are nearly identical. Of course, these are only the charges; the hospital receives only a percentage of these from an insurance company. However, if you are one of the 47 million Americans with no insurance, you are charged full freight." link:http://www.sacbee.com/health/story/317717.html Do you have $119,400 laying around? Even if you do....you're making a system which only supports healthcare for the rich. And that's just one procedure. The simple fact is that we're more expensive than anyone else in the world....Switzerland is in 2nd place and they pay 44% of what we do. Lower costs.....lower healthcare prices..............maybe that alone would make healthcare affordable for everybody. Here's a thought........if a government can't take care of the people that it works for, what good is it? "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!

This is an invalid argument............obviously there's countries out there where doctor's live on the "reduced" income quite well. Also.....even a 1/3 pay cut isn't going to bring someone into bankruptcy court, look at the salaries (link: http://www.physicianssearch.com/physician/salary2.html) Otherwise there would be no doctor's or nurses in the countries that have lower healthcare rates. If everything was covered by a US healthcare system then there would be no need for Medicare or Medicaid. Closing federal parks and museums has nothing to do with healthcare. As I said..........that's what the panel would be for, to determine fair prices and payrates. I also said, that this may not be the best route.........but there's gotta be a way to get our inflated healthcare costs down. If the bills are too high, then they need to get lowered. Just like the over-inflated oil prices, the companies and doctors aren't gonna say give me less money. What would you do to lower healthcare costs? Getting rid of Medicaid and Medicare isn't a real solution as it leaves a lot of people uncovered unless it's replaced with something else. And special tax exempt healthcare savings accounts are pointless too.............what happens if you get colon cancer? you might as well kiss your ass goodbye cause your savings account wont contain the hundreds of thousands of dollars unless you're rich. Once again leaving a whole bunch of people uncovered. Oh then on top of the savings account you could sell private insurance for major procedures....right? Sounds like a great way to keep somebody's insurance buddies in business....but pointless cause you're not changing anything....the health insurance is still private and the government gets more taxes to play with...........oh and you leave a bunch of poor and elderly people uncovered. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Correct..........pretty much a we think this is a fair price, if you don't agree then go f. yourself and peddle it elsewhere. Business people do this all the time, why can't the government do it. Just to make this clear......I'm not saying "make this a 99 cent special or no go". I'm saying fair prices......that's what the panel is for, the doctor's for one side and the budget officials for the other. If they can accomplish having lower prices in medical costs elsewhere in the world, then I think we'll be able to do it here. Like I said, this may not be the best method.........I'm open to suggestion. But what's going on right now isn't working for everybody. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Just like I said............create a panel consisting of a group of doctors and budget officials that would regulate healthcare costs to get us to a normal level. They would meet yearly to go over the list to cover inflation. There may be better ways and if you have any ideas I'd love to hear them. But it's ridiculous that we are paying twice as much as the #1 ranked country for healthcare. ...and you're in violation of your face!

I can't say that I agree with the guy.........I think privatizing insurance will just allow prices to raise. There's 4 or 5 major health insurance companies in the US that own smaller sub companies will different names........that's not really going to be a competitive market. That's like saying the price of rent will go down because there's so many different places to rent. Or a great example.........think of the oil companies. There's several different companies to compete..........does the price of fuel go down.....no. Because they know people will pay it. Now imagine that you're talking about peoples' lives with healthcare....will the pay it? I found an awesome article that deals with everything....http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18802 ...and you're in violation of your face!

But that doesn't include what the people actually spend on healthcare........so it's not accurate. If we're talking about putting it all into one then you have to include that as well. Because if we have a government healthcare system that covers everything then we wont need private insurance. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Well here's the answer for you and some of this ties in together so bear with me. "In 2002, the latest year for which comparable data are available, the United States spent $5,267 on health care for each man, woman and child in the population. Of this, $2,364, or 45 percent, was government spending, mainly on Medicare and Medicaid. Canada spent $2,931 per person, of which $2,048 came from the government. France spent $2,736 per person, of which $2,080 was government spending." Putting a cap on medical treatment costs, which would be no different than putting a cap on malpractice lawsuits, would lower us to a reasonable level. It would be a difficult process, but imagine....you say it would be close to a trillion dollars, let's just say it's a trillion for ease of math. Using the 2002 comparison in costs of healtcare costs per person.....if we price capped our healthcare costs to that of france (which is ranked #1 for healthcare by the World Health Organization), that would put us down to half that price. So we're at 500 billion now. Since we currently spend about $1.9 trillion dollars on healthcare (url: http://www.cfr.org/publication/13325/), I would gladly take that 500 billion over the 1.9 trillion any day of the week. And guess what....everybody is covered, we don't leave people with a "FU you're not good enough to have healthcare". And here's the reason why I say that everybody should get covered..... "18,000 deaths blamed on lack of insurance By Steve Sternberg, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — More than 18,000 adults in the USA die each year because they are uninsured and can't get proper health care, researchers report in a landmark study released Tuesday. The 193-page report, "Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late," examines the plight of 30 million — one in seven — working-age Americans whose employers don't provide insurance and who don't qualify for government medical care. About 10 million children lack insurance; elderly Americans are covered by Medicare. It is the second in a planned series of six reports by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) examining the impact of the nation's fragmented health system. The IOM is a non-profit organization of experts that advises Congress on health issues. Overall, the researchers say, 18,314 people die in the USA each year because they lack preventive services, a timely diagnosis or appropriate care. The estimated death toll includes about 1,400 people with high blood pressure, 400 to 600 with breast cancer and 1,500 diagnosed with HIV. "Our purpose is simply to deliver the facts, and the facts are unequivocal," says Reed Tuckson, an author of the report and vice president for consumer health at UnitedHealth Group in Minnetonka, Minn. Among the study's findings is a comparison of the uninsured with the insured: Uninsured people with colon or breast cancer face a 50% higher risk of death. Uninsured trauma victims are less likely to be admitted to the hospital, receive the full range of needed services, and are 37% more likely to die of their injuries. About 25% of adult diabetics without insurance for a year or more went without a checkup for two years. That boosts their risk of death, blindness and amputations resulting from poor circulation. Being uninsured also magnifies the risk of death and disability for chronically sick and mentally ill patients, poor people and minorities, who disproportionately lack access to medical care, the landmark study states. "The report documents the immense consequence of having 40 million uninsured people out there," says Ray Werntz, a consumer health expert with the Employee Benefit Research Institute. "We need to elevate the problem in the national conscience." Calculating the cost in human suffering, he says, "is one way to get there."" The link just in case you can't believe it's true....(http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm) That's 18,000 deaths too many.....it's sad that you're not bothered by this. This is great because it proves my point.......we have 18,000 people dying each year because they can't afford insurance. And there a few people that fight for them to get insurance because they are not part of the "elite" or middle to upper class crowd. The people that are well off aren't concerned and they don't want to pay more or pay for someone else's problem....which isn't even an issue. But you're only looking at it from two perspectives......if we lower the cost and cover everybody as a group and make sure it gets run well then we wont have to pay anymore, with your estimates it looks like we could pay less. ...and you're in violation of your face!

...and you're in violation of your face!

I use the term "socialist", which may or may not be strictly true, but WHO believes that a system entirely controlled by the federal government and funded by taxes is the only viable model. Everybody pays their "fair" share, and everybody gets equal and probably far superior care. Doesn't sound bad.....sounds like a good idea if it can be run correctly. Not to me What exactly sounds bad about everybody getting equal and probably far superior care? ...and you're in violation of your face!

I use the term "socialist", which may or may not be strictly true, but WHO believes that a system entirely controlled by the federal government and funded by taxes is the only viable model. Everybody pays their "fair" share, and everybody gets equal and probably far superior care. Doesn't sound bad.....sounds like a good idea if it can be run correctly. ...and you're in violation of your face!

I'm making slow progress in analyzing the report. I don't think that WHO is biased toward any particular country, or even a group of countries, but digging after through their report, I have no doubt at all that they are very biased toward a certain healthcare model. What have you found out about that? What kind of system? Does it work better? ...and you're in violation of your face!

I definitely don't agree with the guy's decision, but it just goes to show that there are some serious problems with the current system and they need to be addressed. There's a lot of people that just can't afford insurance and therefore can't afford to get sick. It's sad. And what happens when they get things like cancer.....then they're just SOL. That's not right. Everybody has the right to get treated, there should be no cases of turning people away in any case, but especially when their life is on the line. What? Did you go to the link? Maybe I misinterpreted your original post. The newspaper story from yesterday made it sound like a mercy killing. Today's story makes it look like the guy was known to be dangerous. I went to the link and read it.....today's article definitely makes it sound that way. That's why I said I don't agree with his choices......regardless of if it was a mercy killing or not, unless of course it was her will. But if the guy truely did this because they could no longer afford this because of the medical bills then it's a sad story that could have been prevented. 18,000 people a year die because they can't afford health insurance according to USA Today, here's the link http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm ...and you're in violation of your face!