Why don't we fund health care like we do the military?

I swear I love this country. I can get an appointment with my primary care physician within a day. A specialist for a non-emergency within a week. I can go to the ER and get prompt care. I love this country!!!

I forgot to say that I'm covered well under a good health insurance plan, something that unfortunately many adults and kids in this country do not have.

But for the insured in this country, they have it much better than many of the patient in government health care systems around the world. In Canada, it takes you weeks to schedule an emergency heart bypass or up to a year to see a specialist for an urgent condition, leading to unneccessary health problems for many. But in America, we have health care on demand if we can afford it.

So I have an idea. Let's combine the benefits of both the American system and the Canadian/U.K systems. Let's continue to spend what we spend on health care in this country. 10%, 20%, it shouldn't matter. Health care is a need and we are enlightened for putting such a high priority on it. However, the government must provide health care to all citizens. If that means the government pays for a Medicare type program for everybody, who can use their insurance to see private doctors, fine. If the government decides that doctors should be public employees, fine.

But what should not happen is we should not shortchange our government medical system like they do in Canada, which is the reason Canadians and Britishers have to deal with waiting times for health care.

Now some might say we can't afford this. If we could afford giving 10 cents to every dollar to Bob McNamara in the 1960s, we can afford putting 10% of our GDP to use for a government medical system. It would be ingenious, it would be both capitalistic friendly and socialistic friendly, and it would make America the world pioneers it used to be.

that Canada is trying to deliver health care to a population of only 35 million, not the hugest tax base to deliver modern (expensive) care,especially given some of their wildly rural areas.

We have 260 million souls in this country. Admittedly, more and more of us are slipping into poverty each day, but our potential tax base is much larger and sturdier than Canada's. We could do the things you propose, if we only had the will. The will is lacking. How bad do things have to get before we find it?

I don't know if it's the right plan, but it's nice to see an elected representative actually talking about it.

some snips

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0112-37.htm

The answer is Medicare, whose 40th birthday we will celebrate in July. I propose that as a 40th birthday gift to the American people, we expand Medicare over the next decade to cover every citizen - from birth to the end of life.

It's no secret that America is still dearly in love with Medicare. Administrative costs are low. Patients' satisfaction is high. Unlike with many private insurers, they can still choose their doctor and their hospital.

For those who prefer private insurance, we will offer comparable coverage under the same range of private insurance plans already available to Congress. I can think of nothing more cynical or hypocritical than a Member of Congress who gives a speech denouncing health care for all, then goes to his doctor for a visit paid for by the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan.

I call this approach Medicare for All, because it will free all Americans from the fear of crippling medical expenses and enable them to seek the best possible care when illness strikes.

The battle to achieve Medicare for All will not be easy. Powerful interests will strongly oppose it, because they profit immensely from the status quo. Right wing forces will unleash false attack ads ranting against socialized medicine and government-run health care.

That's the last thing we need: A dose of socialism! A pox on your anti-freedom house! :sarcasm:

:rofl:
God forbid we should respond to the desires of the people.

Just look at those Chinese "communists."
300,000 millionaires this year.
:eyes:

because it doesn't match anything my canadian friends tell me.

It seems to depend on who you ask when asking about the Canadian health care system. Some love it, some bitch.

My information is anecdotal, yet it's first-hand. I don't feel comfortable however talking about the specific health problems concerned on a public message board.

Google "waiting times health care election" for Canada and the UK. You'll get actual policy debates on how the governments and the oppositions hope to reduce the waiting times for health care.

Oil is.

Stealing from US taxpayers is also highly lucrative as in the bogus health care savings accounts he's trying to create, so that his pals can 'manage' your savings right into their own pockets, then declare it stolen so that it's then paid back to yourself by YOU, in the form of being federally insured!

Whatta DEAL for everyone BUT the US taxpayers. Gosh, life under republicans sure is GREAT if you're a republican!

... then again, education makes for disobedient citizens so maybe that's not such a bright idea.

:sarcasm:

before criticizing Canada, based on things you may have heard. Most of what's out there is inaccurate and amounts to little more than corporate propaganda and urban myth. Believe me, it doesn't take "weeks" to get emergency heart surgery in Canada.

And if you think there's healthcare "on demand" in America- well, I guess you're very fortunate. My folks were well to do- and had excellent insurance- and it took weeks to get appointments with specialists- for fairly serious matters- meaning that months passed before they finally got on with the proper course of treatment.

Health Canada and the British NHS are two very different systems. The NHS is run by "trusts," and its akin to what people might call socialized medicine. It runs very well and provides comprehensive treatment- including wellness promotion and preventative medicine. The US system is abysmally poor at that- because it's fragmented and irrational, there's no incentive for corporations and insurers to keep people well.

The Canadian system is single payer. Each Province draws from a national fund. You have a primary care physician (a family doctor) who sees you and sends the bill along to the provincial govenment- and gets paid in due course. No bullshit from insurance companies and HMO's.

America's not a pioneer in much of anything I can see- not for the last 40 years, anyway.

Be that as it may, your idea of expanding medicare is a good one. There's no reason to create a whole new system- just bring people in to the existing one. It's efficient, affordable and provides incentives to reduce costs. In fact, it's responsible for most of the innovations in America's medical "system." Howard Dean suggested doing this- incrementally at first, by making larger spreads of people eligible.

Personally- I think it would make more sense to do it in one fell swoop.

I'm not sure about funding it at 10% of every dollar- but maybe that makes sense, considering that healthcare expenditures are over 15% of GDP- and a good deal of that goes to parasites in the system, who's sole job it is to figure out how to deny people care.

It seems to me to make more sense to run it up successive brackets and take advantage of the decreasing marginal utility of the dollar. I expect that if it were explained right, even the stigiest CEO's would see that it's even in their economic interests to pay this tax- and take the healthcare burden off of their companies- whilst getting a healthier, more productive workforce in the process.

Because usually it takes several weeks to even get your first appointment with a specialist, even if you're in severe pain or need. And that's only after your primary care doctor has gone through his bag of tricks and agreed to send you to the specialist. Then, when they figure out what you need, it can take several more weeks to schedule surgery. I've known people who have had to wait 2-3 months for surgeries, and not elective surgeries either.

Still, a public/private system is what we need. Good base coverage for everybody, with a private insurance system for those who want elite service. Lots of European countries do it that way and it seems to work just as well as single payer.

As do the doctors, Big-Pharma and others associated with it. And this system has significant inherent flaws, the biggest of which is that it leads not to keeping people healthy, but keeping them sick and injured.

Think about it. How do doctors, insurers, drug companies and other health care providers make their money? By keeping people healthy, or by treating/curing their illnesses and injuries? It is the latter, so of course it is in their interest to let people get sick/injured so they can order tests, prescribe/sell drugs, provide treatments, perform surgery, etc.


And all concerned parties sit back and reap the profits, at the expense of sick and injured Americans. Repugs are best friends with the corporations that make billions in the health care industry and get many a donation from them. They are not going to make policies that cut into their profits.

If Universal Health Care were implemented, it would have to be more cost-effective. Accordingly the "for-profit" system would have to be toned down, and the practice of treating illness/injury rather than preventing it would need to become a thing of the past. Preventive care would need to become the new standard. This would make the system immensely affordable, yet not incredibly enticing to the money grubbers.

That's why the Repugs hate it so much.