If we had a national health care system, GM and Ford will be able to

compete against the Japanese automakers.Are the jobs of the autoworkers less important than filling up the wallets of the insurance industry?

As for your question - obviously! Autoworkers vote mostly Democratic. The insurance companies give mostly to repubs. No brainer!

cost efficient than privatized care? Way more bang for the buck.

Where does the money come from? Cut the funding to the military. Doesn't do us a damn bit of good anyhow.

I'd love to have the citation; it would be good ammo for debate.

As for cutting the military to the degree it would take to free up enough money, it sounds good, but I doubt it will happen. Just being realistic. :-)

The way I see it, the people who consume healthcare pay for it one way or another. Either through lower wages/higher prices when companies pay, or higher taxes, when government pays.

Nothing is free.

BTW, I am one of the 40 million with no health coverage.

Peace.

Canada and most of Europe do far better at half the price. The system here is designed to do nothing but further enrich the Frist family and other sadists.

For me, the jury is out. I want to form my own opinion, rather than have someone inculcate me with theirs. If you have good evidence from a neutral source in support of your view, I'm all ears. However, I'm not asking you to google for a few one-sided web pages...I can do that myself. Instead, I'm wondering what convinced you in the first place. Did you always believe the way you do now? Have you considered any neutral evidence that doesn't support your conclusions?

I'm the sort who thinks there are two sides to every story, and that means I usually don't give total credibility to someone who thinks there's only one.

Hit me with your best shot.

Peace.

against someone who argues that the earth isn't flat?

The United States spends a much higher percentage of its healthcare money on administrative costs than countries with universal coverage.

No one on this thread seems to value the process of critical evaluation of the facts and deducing a position from them. I am not a flat-Earther. Frankly, my open-minded position seems farther removed from flat Earth than the positions of those who think there's no complexity to this issue, and that there is unequivocally only one side to this story.

My mind is not made up yet. Generally, when a subject is controversial, and people on both sides of the issue are shrill or dismissive with their arguments, I take it as a sign there is no clear answer. No one argues about what time the sun will rise tomorrow, because the facts are clear. Everyone argues about (for example) the right balance between military and social spending, because that's not clear.

I asked sincerely and politely for some examples of evidence from neutral sources that others found convincing. I guess I'll just go find my own.

Peace.

who's looking for "neutral" evidence of a set of facts that is SO obvious to anyone who's EVER studied the matter that it's like proving the earth is round.

It's like the NY Times:

Bush says earth is flat opinions vary. That's not beng open minded!

Which is why I asked for information. You supplied me nothing but an sneer.

Just a thought, but there are better techniques of persuasion.

Peace.

For most of the industrialized world, universal health care is a nonissue. The only folks against national health systems are a tiny minority consisting of the rightwingers in the U.S. and a couple of other countries. Everyone else takes for granted that it's the right way to do things.

In the interests of catering to your open mind, give us something resembling a compelling reason we shouldn't have national health care, and we'll address your concerns. Every argument I've ever heard against it is bullshit. The most popular are:

1. It's commie big-guvment which means more redtape.

Bullshit. As mentioned in the my last post, the U.S. spends a higher percentage of its health care dough on administrative costs than do other countries. When you see a doctor in Ontario (and presumably the rest of Canada as well) there's not a bunch of paperwork to be done. You have the receptionist swipe your health card and go have a seat. Scaling back the clumsy private insurance bureaucracy streamlines the system and makes it more efficient.

2. It costs more.

Again bullshit. Most other industrialized countries spend less per capita on health care, yet maintain similar if not better health and wellness statistics.

3. It denies patient choice.

This is probably the dumbest argument of the bunch. Most national health systems empower the patient by letting her see any doctor she so chooses. (It's certainly the case in Canada anyway.) In contrast, the American system illustrates what denial of choice is all about. Many insurance plans and HMO's tell you which doctors you can see and which ones you aren't covered for. And if you're one of the 45 million Americans without health insurance, the choice is made for you: your primary care provider is the emergency room.

4. The quality of care is inferior

Since this is something that can't be easily quantified, you mostly hear anecdotal evidence to assert that the quality of care is inferior in places with national health care. But for every tale of woe for someone in a national health care system, I can scrounge up several horror stories of people in the U.S. being fucked over. In my personal experience, the healthcare facilities I've encountered in Canada measure up to those in the States. (And remember that other countries spend less on healthcare than the U.S.) There is absolutely no reason that a single-payer system would translate into a drop in quality of services.

There's no question that how a national healthcare system is implemented and maintained is an extremely complex issue, but the question as to whether or not one is desirable isn't really an issue. In Europe are there debates as to whether or not they should ditch their health care systems in favor of ones that cost more yet don't cover everybody? Seems like a pretty stupid idea to me.

If there really is another side to this story, then you should have no problems finding it without resorting to asking for us shrill folk here to find it for you. If the only places you can find this other side of the story are the National Review and TownHall.com, some sirens should be going off in your mind.

I appreciate your opinions, and even agree with most of them, but they are, after all, opinions. I can listen to someone with different opinions give me a similar list, except with exactly opposite conclusions. Without neutral information behind the opinions, it's not obvious to an uninitiate like me how to make a critical judgment.

"If there really is another side to this story, then you should have no problems finding it without resorting to asking for us shrill folk here to find it for you."

I have no problems finding biased "information" from the wingnut and repug end of the spectrum. What I do have problem finding are studies untainted by political bias that provide strong evidence, pro or con. That's why I asked those with presumably more familiarity with the evidence to share some sources. It wasn't a major deal, just wondered if someone had something handy.

"In the interests of catering to your open mind, give us something resembling a compelling reason we shouldn't have national health care, and we'll address your concerns."

If I had compelling arguments or reasons, I wouldn't be asking for information, would I?

Sheesh.

And what's with mocking my "open mind"? The amount of pressure in this thread to conform to the "correct" opinion without daring ask for information is extraordinary.

Hmm, I better check the URL. I thought I was on DU.

I did not ask for anyone to do my homework. I just wondered if there was some persuasive, unbiased evidence that someone familiar with the issues could cite. "No" is a perfectly acceptable answer. Treating me like an apostate is not.

Peace.

is that there's no such thing as "neutral" political analysis. Even if one doesn't endorse a given argument, the failure to dismiss it as wrong is still taking a position. For example, if I were a "neutral" observer weighing the pros and cons of the Plessy v. Ferguson case, I'd be taking a stand that most consider racist by failing to indict the seperate but equal clause as wrong.

With respect to this issue, any so-called "neutral" analysis that gives credence to arguments against national health care is just pushing bullshit. In the same manner that there is no "other side of the story" to the flatearth issue, there's no "other side of the story" for national health care. Sorry if the usage of this example in my first post came across as being abrasive, but I've never seen an objection to national health care that's not an echo of GOP talking points. The fact that you can't think of something resembling a compelling argument against national healthcare ought to tell you something...like perhaps there aren't any. Trust your instincts.

I'm not saying you shouldn't seek feedback at DU. I was kind of under the impression that's what I offered in my last post. You can dismiss them as mere opinions, but most of what I presented are facts. It is not my opinion that the U.S. spends more per captia on health care than other countries. It's a fact. It's not my opinion that the U.S. has a higher percentage of it's health care spending going to administrative costs than other countries do. It's a fact. It's not my opinion that stats that can somewhat measure the effectiveness of health care (infant mortality rates, life expectancy, etc.) point to the superiority of health care in other countries. It's a fact. And it's not my opinion that HMO's and private insurance typically deny patient choice in ways that most national health care systems don't. It's a well-documented fact. I'll freely admit to being too lazy to want to spend an hour or two tracking down all the stats and citations for my factual claims, but they're out there.

By declaring you have an open mind, you're implying that those of us who've taken a stance are closed minded, an accusation I resent. I have an open mind too, but over the years my open mind has taken in quite a bit of info on the subject and the "correct" position (as you scarequote it) has been made quite clear. The clincher for me was that I've had the good fortune to live in Canada for the last 3 years and I've seen first hand a national health care system that while not being perfect, on the whole works a lot better than the U.S. system. So when I read somebody raving against national heatlthcare, their words contradict what I've seen with my own 2 eyes. Hence I'm pretty passionate about this.

Peace to you too. (Sincerely)

I'm glad to hear your opinions. It's always helpful to hear the opinions of others while forming your own. I'm equally glad you hold them passionately. What good is an opinion without good red blood in its veins?

But I am not you. I have my own process of weighing issues. The inputs to that process are facts. The output is my opinion.

Perhaps it's a problem of anonymous forums, but some people think it's cool to be uncivil or downright mean to those who ask questions. Imagine me looking right in your eyes. Now imagine me speaking slowly and respectfully.

I did not ask for neutral opinions. I only asked for an unbiased source of facts so that I could form MY OWN OPINION.

It's just fine if no one has or wants to share such a source with me. In that case, not replying is the right response, or if you do, say "no." Or say that you don't have any neutral sources, but you do have few damned good biased sources I should take a look at. Seriously, almost any response is ok, except for one: ridiculing me for having the presumption to ask a question. Several here did just that. (I'm not addressing you here, Telly) As soon as someone pulls that shit, they've thrown away any further opportunity to persuade me.

I did not, as you say, "imply that those of who've taken a stance are closed minded." (You then go on to say you resent my supposed implication.) It's uncool to put words in my mouth. The words were not in my mouth, not on my keyboard, and not in my head. I'm glad that over the years you've taken in quite a bit of information, and that the matter is now clear to you. So picture me as a version of you, only about ten years ago, when it was less clear.

The scarequoted "correct" thinking I lambaste is universal in human intercourse, and we have to stay on guard against it. Our truths must remain flexible enough to accommodate questioning without cracking. Only a brittle truth must be protected from scrutiny; a resilient truth can protect itself. That's why I don't understand the anger and knee-jerk condemnation that accompanies non-troll questioning. If anything, questioning provides a re-affirmation of belief (if that belief is worth believing), and provides an opportunity to help guide others.

You again recited a whole list of your opinions in this latest post, but you called them facts. I'm sure they're facts to you, but just saying so does not make them so to me. That doesn't mean I doubt them either; it just means I make my own judgments. You reserve the right to decide your own opinions; would you rather I didn't? Maybe your opinions will end up being mine, too. Maybe not.

There's a Chinese proverb: The man who strikes first admits that his fists are stronger than his ideas. (I'm not responsible for Chinese sexist language, btw.)

A quick anecdote, then I'm gone. Some of my closest friends work in film production in Toronto. They loathe the national health system, and pay out of their own pocket for medical care in the US. Another friend in Vancouver says the system has a few annoyances, but is generally good, and she's glad for it. So who do I believe? The answer is: both, and neither. Ultimately, I will make my own decision. All I want are a few sources of unbiased facts, so I can make my own very biased decision. Apparently I won't get them here on DU, but I'll get them anyway, no problem. That's not DU's responsibility; that's my responsibility.

Peace.

tax cuts to the wealthy.I say let us restore those tax cuts, get out of Iraq that is costing us upward of $100 billion dollars a year and cut our bloated defense budegt that has exceeded half a trillion dollars. Are you averse to tapping into these funds for providing health care for our citizens, if in the process we restore competitiveness to our major corporations.

Our people are facing major job losses if GM/Ford/Delphi/Visteon and numerous parts suppliers go under. If that happens, the housing market will be in serious trouble. I have suggested that taxpayer financed universal health care may be able to remedy the situation for the benefit of all.You seem to want to ignore this and raise a typical Republican phony argument.I would think even Republicans should be for this proposal because it simply asks Bush to restore his tax cuts.That is not a tax increase by any definition. I have also suggested two other ways to finance the health care.

The benefits of redirecting our public tax moneys are so obvious and so great,I cannot understand what is stopping our Democrats from arguing for this.

I actually agree with much of your position. What's up with the knee-jerk reaction that I am shopping some sort of "typical phony Republican argument"? I asked for some supporting evidence from a neutral source so I could make up my own mind instead of recite someone else's mantra.

Did you forget the part where I mention I have NO HEALTH CARE COVERAGE myself? Yeah, I'd say I have an interest in this subject.

I'm with you about restoring the cut taxes. I also see how the driver's license office works, and I wonder how much money in a government health care system would be wasted on bureaucracy, and how much frustration would result from another Kafkaesque "system." I'm not saying it would be worse, better, or anything else, just hoping for some decent studies that might point to answers.

If you want to persuade someone, don't put them on the defensive.

Peace.

I have difficulty understanding why you would NOT be in favor of a national health plan.

I had no health care coverage for about a decade. My employers didn't offer it and I couldn't afford individual medical insurance.

I have an individual plan now. It's expensive--more than a group policy would be--, has a high deductible, and will pay NOTHING on certain health conditions that I had before I got the policy.

Still, I'm fortunate to have it. A few years ago, my brother-in-law, who is well able to afford the premiums, couldn't get individual insurance AT ALL because of a pre-existing health condition.

I wish the US had a national health plan, but I don't think there's any chance of that happening any time soon.

I said I haven't made up my mind yet.

As I see it, the biggest point in favor of one is that everyone would have coverage. For someone like me, that's huge.

The biggest point against it is that bureaucrats would run it, and my experience with bureaucrats has been atrocious. It also seems the costs of creating a huge bureaucracy infrastructure would be considerable, and the funding and coverage would be distorted by politics.

I seem to have touched a nerve in this thread by asking for others to cite neutral information that they had found persuasive when they were making up their own minds. (Raccoon, this does not include you.)

I agree, there doesn't seem to be a national plan on the horizon currently, but life is long, and the pendulum does swing.

Peace.

I know this is anecdotal, but I go through a hell of a lot of paperwork and verification just to see a doctor, and I endure endless insurance company errors. Every year they try to weasel out of paying. I lost my health coverage for months because they concluded that Virginia ______ and Ginny _______ were two different people, despite having the same social security number and sharing all other types of identification and stats.

How could it possibly be worse than it is now?

Makes me think of that old Who song, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Peace.

http://cthealth.server101.com/united_states_spends_most_on_health,_but_france_no__1_in_treatment.htm

United States Spends Most On Health, But France No. 1 In Treatment

By Lauran Neergaard, Associated Press, 6/20/2000

WASHINGTON (AP) The United States spends more per person on health care than any other country, yet in overall quality its care ranks 37th in the world, says a World Health Organization analysis. It concluded that France provides the globe's best health care.

Italy ranked No. 2, says the World Health Report, being published Wednesday a highly contentious first attempt to compare the world's health systems.

Tiny countries with few patients to care for San Marino, Andorra, Malta crowd onto the World Health Organization's surprising best list. Singapore, Spain, Oman, Austria and Japan round out the top-10.

That doesn't mean the French and Italians are the world's healthiest people. Japan actually won that distinction.

Instead, the WHO report basically measures bang for the buck: comparing a population's health with how effectively governments spend their money on health, how well the public health system prevents illness instead of just treating it and how fairly the poor, minorities and other special populations are treated.

snip/more

Let me also note than the US is the only developed country without universal health care. Our life expectancy is lower than many other nations and our infant mortality rate is higher than others too.

http://www.eagle-min.com/faq/faq85.htm
http://www.whale.to/a/yabak89.html

The AP article is good, and your point about the US standing rather alone in the community of developed nations is a strong empirical nudge to ask why.

The other articles make a good case, too, but it would be even better for my purposes if they came from a neutral source. If I haven't made up my mind on an issue, I always hope for citations from sources that don't have a strong bias one way or the other (I know, a tough order to fill sometimes). Hearing only one side of any story makes critical thinking more difficult.

Again, thanks for taking the time.

Peace.

Not to be argumentative, but your question makes no sense at all. National healthcare, whether we have it or not, has nothing to do with how competitive GM and Ford are.

They don't compete well with the Japanesee automakers because they don't make as many cars that people really want to buy as the Japanese do.

Furthermore, most of the Japanese cars sold here are made in the US, not in Japan.

Redstone