Universal Health Care

I support universal health care a la "Average Joe" Schriner.

Vote for Joe!

by Justin Soutar (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 25 comments) on Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 2:28:46 PM
 

Why not.....

Free Housing, free food, free cars?

Where does it end?

("Free" is an interesting term, also.  Is it really "free", or do Taxpayers foot the bill?)

by Matthew Griffin (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments) on Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 2:46:57 PM
 

Free Housing, free food, free cars?

Where can I get all this free stuff your talking about?

How much money do you make a year Matt? 

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 927 comments) on Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 3:31:25 PM
 

Free?--yes, we are free to take care of one another

Of course nothing is free, so the question you ask is not worth much. The right question is how do we pay to provide health care to all Americans, and for that question there is an unequivocal answer--through a single-payer, doctor/patient, publically financed and privately run health care system. There is a house resolution already in the House for it. It is Rep. John Conyers H.R. 676.  It has 88 co-sponsors at last count.

Now, why is a single-payer system the most humane and cost effective way to run a health care system? That should be your next question.  And the answer is that we do not need our present non-system run by the insurance companies syphoning off 31% of all health care costs due to a profit driven system that is ineffecient and where decision making is made on shareholder profit. In short it made by run amok greed.

Insurance companies do nothing for health care. The operate at 15 tro 30% overhead, the cost going to advertisement, bureaucracy, shareholder profit, exhorbitant CEO pay and staff pay, not to mention the cost of doctors having to pay a team of people to find their way through the maze of payement due to the over 1500 insurance plans, all different and all bent on offering the least amount of care to maximize profit.

A single-payer system, such as our Medicare system, operates at about 3% overhead, and the savings alone could make it so the 47 million unisured could have healthcare--healthcare with no duductible, no copays, no being denied due to pre-existing conditions, nobody out,  everybody in.

At present, the moneyed interests want to get their hands on Medicare, must like they are trying to do to Social Security. In the process they are trying to destroy it, make it less efficient and under-funed so the can get their hooks into the pie and in the end eat the whole pie.

Sure, some will have to pay taxes for this system.  But if anyone thinks that they are not paying now, and paying high prices for lousy plans with high copays and dedcutibles, they better wake up.

I have great insurance, but being one concerned about the health and welfare of all people in this nation, I say enough is enough with corporate greed and their sucking the system dry for the profit for the few.

This isn't sicialized medicine. You can choose your own doctor, and you can get the care your need, and you can get preventative care which will drive costs down. It will also drive costs down since the pool is large, and the system can be run with oversight and accountability, two things you do not now have.  For example, the system can determine how many mamogram machines are needed for the polulace, and we won't have hospital raising costs to have all the gizmos so that they can compete with the hospital down the street. Also, since all are insured, the presently uninsured will not have to go to the emergency room, a costly thing for hospitals, to get care.

H.R. 676 represents the best hope for America's health care. The only thing we need to change first are the ignorant people who have been told that helping one another and deciding as a people how to best serve people is a bad thing.  I tend to think that is what true democracy is all about. And what we need, always, is more democracy. Not less.  And especially not less so that those with the power control the system to serve their ever-expanding, greedy interests.

Ask the right questions with intelligence, and you get the right answers.  Lobby your congress person today to co-sign H.R. 676 if they are not already on. Also, help educate people and quit buying into the talking points and misleading statements and ideas put out by the right-wing think tanks that get paid to keep the people no more than sheeple.

In Solidarity,

Mike Carano

Progressive Democrats of America--Ohio 

by MichaelOhio (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 4:35:32 PM
 

Right now, we have the worst of both worlds...

America's health care system is ALREADY over 60% funded by the government. Of every dollar it touches, private health care insurers keep 33 cents.... By NOT providing health care. And they do not provide Preventive Care.

If the U.S. bought drugs in bulk like Canada does, the cost would be 30% of what it is now as retail. The lowering of percentage of healthcare as part of the GNP would free up capital for more productive uses. 

Our heavy manufacturing companies would be able to compete much better with foreign competition that does not have the great burden of covering their employees like our companies do.

Small business would benefit by being able to better attract and keep workers. Poor people would have less incentive to stay on Welfare. And there would be far fewer people walking around with sicknesses that threaten our society at large.  

That's were the cost saving are....

Now, it's true that someone would be hurt: Private insurance companies, pharm corps who can't overcharge old, poor sick people by over 200% any more... And their hugely powerful lobbyists in Washington.

Aww, too bad..... ;)

Unfortunatly, this is also why it won't happen any time soon.

by Steve Windisch (jibbguy) (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 171 comments) on Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 3:46:44 PM
 

don't just sit there...

Well, here in Ohio we are working to get single payer at the state level, as they are in other states across the nation. This is the door to which we will win a national single-payer system (www.spanohio.org).  The thing is, if we say it ain't gonna happen and are not doing the grunt work to make it happen, then all the bloggin in the world won't get the job done.  Activism! It is about building the movement for change.  The easy way out is to stand on the sidelines, but this movement is part of a larger movment. The movement to take control of our democracy and do what we need to do for the masses rather than let the few do what they always do for themselves--keep us under control and their coffers full.

by MichaelOhio (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 5:02:02 PM
 

Strickland supports this??

If Strickland, Gov. of Ohio, supports this (and there isn't extremely strong insurmountable opposition in the State Senate and House), I would be very pleasantly surprised... And shocked.

... Having originally come from NE Ohio and knowing what a bastion of republicanism that state is...

 I would also be surprised because I thought Strickland took money from the health insurance co's . Like all the mainstream prez candidates did. Which of course equals absolutely nothing done that would harm them.   

But I wish that effort well, and may you win!! I am no longer an Ohio resident but if it does happen, I may move back!

And thx for the advice, however my actions are presently focused on other projects. Like eliminating the problems that keeps N-F-P UHC from happening in the first place, despite its demonstrated majority popularity: The corruption of MSM and the U.S. Congress, and the power of corporate lobbyists.  

My premise is that we the people, from all over the political spectrum, must form a new Coalition Reform Third Party; with just this goal: Make the nation safe to argue in, before resuming the argument. Once we can clean out the hidden control and corruption, then there is a chance for Universal Health Care and many other things we so desperatly need.   

by Steve Windisch (jibbguy) (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 171 comments) on Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 5:31:40 PM
 

It's a "Free" for all!

Someone asked me how much I make in a year.  I say "Why does it matter"?

Let's contribute ALL of our income to the government and then let them take care of everything.  That's the only way that we can truly have a fair system.

Is it fair that Warren Buffet has a bigger house than me?  NO.

by Matthew Griffin (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments) on Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 6:59:58 PM
 

Your Not Getting the Point Matt

What if the trillions of dollars spent on war and killing people was used for

health care instead? Universal health care is not free, this is understood.

It's just that our tax money could be put to much better use than fighting an unending war.

     The reason I asked how much you make is simple. If you never had to struggle to make ends meet it's hard to connect with people that have.

It's a fine line today between making it and not making it.

    Anyone at anytime can be stricken with a health catastrophe. Is it just and humane that a person lose everything they worked for just because they have the misfortune of getting sick? Think about.

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 927 comments) on Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 8:02:22 PM
 

But in the context of this article Bob.....

my questions are valid.

In her article, Kris asks "Is it not the function of the government to take care of us"?  Huh?  Then she states some shining examples where socialism has worked in America, and starts with Public Education.  You're kidding me, right Kris?  Public education is a disaster.

She also states that she thinks that Health Care is a Right, not a Privilege.  Ok, let's assume that's true (it clearly is not).  Is not food and shelter a Right then.  I would rather have a roof over my head and no Insurance, than have Insurance and no roof.  Do you want me to have to live on the street Kris?  Do you want my kids to starve?  That's very harsh of you.

And speaking of kids, they need Daycare if I'm going to be able to work.  Do you have any idea the cost of Daycare?  I'll tell you - in my area it averages $800 per month per kid.  When are we going to get a government program to pay for that?

Or maybe the author just needs to understand a great truth in life.  Kris, is you are still out there, the only person who is responsible for taking of you is YOU.  Forget the Nanny State.

by Matthew Griffin (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments) on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 7:45:15 AM
 

Some Valid Points Matt

You make some valid points Matt.

I don't believe the government should be a "security blanket" for everything.

Remember, the government is elected to represent the will of the people (even

though it is not reality now). There are many solutions to the problems.

If healthcare was affordable "universal healthcare" would not be needed,but unfortunately healthcare costs are criminally high.

     The problem is that the interests of politicians, our government, corporations are interwoven to such a high degree that they pretty much

control everything to the detriment of the common man.

by Bob Gormley (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 927 comments) on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 11:35:42 AM
 

Thanks Bob

(HEY! Someone that doesn't just think I'm an overbearing jerk!)

My concern is that there are a lot of people that DO think that the Government should be a Security Blanket.  I refer back to the question asked by the Author: "Is it not the Government's funtion to take care of us"?  She actually thinks that it is.

Even our esteemed editor in chief - Rob Kall - thinks there needs to be a Middle Class Safety Net.  Well, what does that look like?  Hmmm, I was making $50K a year, I lost my job and I'm disabled (strike up the violins) and now the Gov. provides me with that income.  Yikes, that's going to get costly.  Especially when people don't have any work incentive anymore.

The term I threw around, and will do it again, is Nanny State.  I want to see the US return to the Rugged Individualism of our grandparents.

by Matthew Griffin (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments) on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 11:59:40 AM
 

What would health care look like if we had market forces?

  The corporations and their minions say that we don't want socialized medicine so I suppose that we want a medical free market, right?  That would mean that anyone who qualified could go to medical school and foreign doctors could come over, pass the medical exams, and hang out their shingle.  We could triple or quadruple the number of doctors in the country very quickly.  Imagine that, you might not have to wait four hours for a three minute exam from a sleep deprived punchy doctor who prescribes the wrong meds.  And then we could have as many clinics and hospitals opened up as the market could bear.  No more waiting for test and treatment for cancer patients (I'm not talking about countries with socialized medicine, I'm talking about the good old USA).  Anyone with the money and the expertise could begin research and get approval and patents on new drugs (and when the patents expired  in seven years ANYBODY could manufacture them).  Also foreign companies could sell medicine over here too.  If there were 25-30 pharmaceutical companies competing against each in a real market, and doctors were as plentiful as barbers, the price of health care would decline significantly.  My friends tell me that the quality of health care would decline.  My response is that it can't get much worse than it is right now.  This scenario may perhaps be more frightening to the healthcare moguls than socialized medicine.  For my part I don't care which way we go, but the insurance companies, big farma, and the AMA are disingenuous when they try to frame the argument as though it is a choice between socialism or market forces.

by vidiot (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 221 comments) on Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 8:08:24 PM
 

America deserves a public health care system

Matthew Griffin, I live in a country that has a national health system (Australia). This system works just fine as it does in every other civilized country. That's because these governments recognize that (1) everyone gets sick; (2) denying essential health care to poor people is immoral; and (3) most private health systems deliver poor value for money.

Here's something for you to think about. Imagine you lived in a country where there was no local, state or federal police. Instead, you had to pay hefty "security insurance" to gain the protection of private guards. If someone mugged you or defrauded you and you didn't have such insurance you would have to pursue that person legally from your own pocket -- pay for forensics, witnesses, court time, jail fees to incarcerate the criminal etc. How would you feel about such a system? Pretty weird, huh? Well, let me tell you that's what the US health system looks like to outsiders. It's expensive and crazy.

Your taxes pay for many assets used by everybody: police, fire services, the military, roads, airports, education etc. There is nothing wrong with taxes paying for a public health care system. The rest of the world is doing it. It's cheaper and better. You guys really do deserve a break. Give yourselves a decent public health care system.

by ken (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 46 comments) on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 12:33:02 AM
 

Hey Ken, my regards to Australia....

But if you had ever seen the US Public Education system in action, it would give you pause.  It's an absolute mess, run by inept bureaucrats and greedy unions with illiterate teachers.

Where I live, you are forced to pay for private education, to the tune of $10K a year per child.  At least, if you want them to have the 3 'R's - Reading, Writing, and Refuge.

My friends at OpEdNews should understand why I'm reluctant to turn over 1/7th of the American Economy to the same Federal Government that they think is responsible for 9/11.

by Matthew Griffin (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments) on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 9:07:39 AM
 

Universal health care DOES NOT MEAN public health care syste

It is a common misconception in America that to have a so-called 'public health system' it automatically mean turning it over to the government to run.

Wrong!

What most developed countries have is, let me spell it out in capitals, UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FINANCED BY A SINGLE PUBLIC INSURANCE SYSTEM.

Virtually the entire health care system, hospitals, clinics, pharmacy, labs, remain in private and run by professionals. The government runs a single thing - health insurance. 

Most governments, even incompetent ones, can handle that. It is no more challenging than running the driver license bureau. (In Canada, the federal government does not even run the insurance piece. That's in the hands of the 10 provincial governments - each runs the health insurance in different ways to fit local requirements.)

I hear a lot of hyped up fear in America in this debate.

Such as 'give it to the government and they will screw it up'. Well, the government does not run the complex health care system - just health insurance for the majority of health care. They already run Medicare and Mediaid don't they?

The second fear is 'socialism'. This is drumed up by the private health insurance companies in colloberation with the Republican party to scare the wits out of the population. The US already has lots of universal social service so that's new? What socialism-monger doing is trying to keep health insurance business in private hands where they are enjoy revenue and profits even more obscene than Wall Street, where they charge a 35% overhead for delivering not a single bit of useful health care. The socialism talk is all about keeping their license to print money. 

by TomK (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 217 comments) on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 3:59:18 PM
 

I think the majority of the citizens support it

It is the money and power (influence) of the health insurance corporations that has persuaded our government representatives to reject universal health care.

Like others here have stated - the health insurance industry does nothing to provide health care; the just take a big cut of the total cost of health care. What the public could save by cutting out the middle-man (health insurance industry) should lower everyones health care costs.

Individuals without health insurance, that fully pays for ones health care, chooses to not attend to health care until it becomes an emergence condition and then health care involves ambulances, emergency medical teams, and emergency room care (much more costly than attending to the condition in the early stages).  Mortality rates should also drop if one doesn't wait until conditions get serious before seeking treatment.

Then there are the stories of health insurance companies denying treatment because profit is the goal instead of the health of the customer.

by Philip Pease (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 125 comments) on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 9:09:04 AM