Universal, Single Payer, Accessible Health Care Is ..........

.... an Unfunded RIGHT.

It really is that simple.

n/t

But it's exactly what I believe too. I have always hoped that we can bring him around on this issue.

Not only would it be available to everyone, it would be the best in the world.

military budget .Doesn't seem so civilized to me...

Your defence budget (not counting either war or the uncalculated "black budget") is around $613 billion.

Under the NHS model for universal healthcare (which I live under), the cost would be roughly $600 billion (around $2000 per person x a population of around 300 million) so a third of your defence budget wouldn't do it. The average Brit, on an average income pays around £5000 in taxes each year. Of that, roughly one fifth (£1000 or roughly $2000) goes into the NHS budget. Naturally, that's a progressive tax so the rich pay vastly more and even the long-term unemployed are covered.

That's for the imperfect NHS model which tends toward functional and doesn't include dentistry (which is why we Brits traditionally have bad teeth). The French model, generally accepted as the best in the world, would cost around $900 billion to run in the USA. Actual implementation costs more because the infrastructure has to be put together but only costs a little to keep it running thereafter.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm very much in favour of universal healthcare and I'm frankly baffled as to why the US population hasn't rioted to get it but it is expensive to run and even more expensive to implement initially. It's a big project which will require massive amounts of funds and labour to get started but one that's very much worth doing. The funds can be found if there's enough motivation. Let's say, a third off the defence budget, a big tax hike on the very rich, reinstatement of the inheritance tax and closing the loopholes in corporate tax should get us there.

That said, since the US is coming to this system later than most nations, there's nothing to stop you assembling a committee to study the existing systems and mix-and-matching the best parts.

In Europe for example, I've seen politicians run out of office literally overnight. Here, instead of Americans gathering in masses to get something done, they prefer to elect one person who promises to get something done for them instead.

Of course, anything looks weird compared to the system you've lived with all your life. When Thatcher tried to implement the vastly unfair Poll Tax, we took to the streets and several of our major cities had full-blown rioting and the government was forced to back down.

Our politicians aren't any more inherently noble than yours, I honestly think the major difference is the surgery system. What happens is that there is a custom that all MPs (not counting the PM and Cabinet who are too busy) hold an open meeting for their constituents at least once a month where they can hear opinion, respond to criticism or whatever. I've seen MPs get verbally torn to shreds at surgerys and there's no repercussions unless you do something nuts like physically threaten them.

Our current Private/Partially Public fiasco costs us 2 TRILLION dollars a year, well above 600 or 900 billion. So we are talking about cutting costs by more than 50%, overall, by implementing such a system. Even with initial costs, it would still save Americans money, regardless of the model we eventually adopt. Medicare/Medicaid already costs 561 billion dollars a year, so to implement a system similar to the UK's, or France's or even Canada's wouldn't be nearly as expensive as people think.

Remember such a system would take over for Medicare/Medicaid, so that money could be used towards such a system.

Actually, that's probably the best way to market it: If you say to people "we need an extra $2000 a year", they'll clam up but if you say "that $2000 a year will cover your healthcare for absolutely everything with no deducatables, you won't need to buy private insurance and your out-of-pocket will be limited to a bottle of asprin", only the real anti-government kooks would refuse. Oh, and there's no nightmare of paperwork either. You pick your doctor and use him as normal, he only has one organisation to deal with so his workload eases off, leading to better patient care.

By the way, you can actually get that bottle of asprin on the NHS but why would you bother your doctor for that?

And unfortunately hundreds of people daily do go to the base hospital, wait two to three hours to be seen and then waste the doctor's time just to get a free bottle of aspirin or get some free dimetapp cold medicine when they could have just drove to the drug store (there's one on every corner) in less than ten minutes and spent less than $6

Essentially, under the NHS, there's a small fee (currently about $13) for each prescription filled. The young and old are exempt as is anyone in receipt of welfare in any form. It doesn't make a dent in the running costs but it does stop people from wasting the doctor's time.

We're spending 30-50% MORE of our per capita GDP on health care than the French, the Canadians, the Brits, or the Italians and we're getting 20% LESS care. That's an abomination ... a horrendous toll on the working class. To the 'average' American it's a matter of asking "would you rather pay $3000 in after-tax dollars or $2000 in tax dollars to get health care?" If they elect the former, you call them the imbeciles they are.

Look at you!... Running around America talking common sense... . . tsk.

Weird thing about our perception of Americans. Brits tend to have a perception of Americans as crass, boorish, nationalistic and often dumb. Having talked to hundreds of you, I've come to the conclusion that's not true of the general populace. However, it often is true of American politicians and since they're the ones that Brits see on their TV most often, that's the impression we get.

We are ALREADY PAYING for universal health care; we just aren't GETTING it.

REAL terror is having a stroke or finding a tumor the day AFTER your COBRA coverage expires.

There are three elements to being a healthy human. If the government is going to fund healthcare they need to supply all three components.

Of course there’s healthcare, this involves dr. visits, surgery and associated care. But there are two other components that Uncle Sam can’t over look.

1. Shelter, to maintain proper health one must have a stable, safe, clean place to call home.
2. Food, proper diet assures a healthy being without proper diet…well you know the rest.

If the gummunt is going to do universal healthcare they must provide food and shelter. Covering 33.333% won’t do, we must insist on the 33.333% a home provides and the 33.333% Food provides to assure proper health of the American public. Don’t let the government rip you off by only covering 33.33% of your entitlement.

Accept nothing less than everything.

The same could be said of being homeless in the winter up north. You will die of frost bite so yea shelter is a part of health care.

To Social Security - which they might not live long enough to collect if they fall ill and are uninsured.

I would rather see my 15 % going to health insurance so I have a chance of living to sixty!!

With that 15% of your money you would save you could buy into a nice healthcare plan. Just try not to get disabled or old.

Didn't mean to be seen as divisive.

Part of that SS you must pay would go into Medicare, but it would cover everyone instead of just the elderly. The greater share would still go into Social Security for retirement, but most likely you will live long enough to collect what you paid into it.

It is morally and socially wrong that their are millions of Americans that do not have any Health Insurance and those that does are at the mercy of the insurance provider. People should never be denied because pre-existing conditions nor should they be denied because it is cheaper for the insurance company to let a person suffer or die because it was cheaper.
We need to write Sen. Obama and our congresspersons and let them know that we want Universal, single payer healthcare. We need top stay on them until we get it and also threaten to run against them if they don't and follow up on that threat. Just because they are in Congress we have to let them know just like every other American their jobs are not safe. We won't get anything we wanmt from this government if we sit idlely by and only complain on internet forurms. We need to get more active in the election of our givernment officails and make sure that the only people that they answer to is us and not the big corperations that they answer to now.

Too many "middle classers" have coverage through work.. Truly poor have medicaid, old folks have medicare, military have VA..That only leaves people who have no large group to advocate for them..

None of the above mentioned insurance plans are "wonderful", but they are better than nothing, and the people participating in them know it, and are too afraid to rock the boat...They all know that they are "lucky" to have what they have, and they will keep most grievances to themselves and say a prayer or two that they keep what they got, and can always manage somehow to afford it..

Until we are willing to admit that the patchwork quilt that we call Medical coverage, is frayed, stained and smelly, we cannot have universal care for everyone.. Why is it this way?? Because we have more than a double standard..As a society, we have chosen to believe that only "deserving" people should have care.. People who have it, don't care all that much about those who don't..

When corporations are PROHIBITED from offering health insurance, a whole bunch of middle classers will finally be angry enough to raise a ruckus..

What has to happen, is for ALL medical care to be rolled into medicare..no more medicaid, no more VA, no more government employees special plans, no more car-washes/bake-sales/yard-sales for surgery..

Now.. why this will also never happen..

ID ..

There are too many paranoid people who insist that an bio-metric ID or mandatory passport for all, and who fear "big-gubbmint" checking up on them.. These contrarians will move heaven and earth to see that we never get those IDs...and without them, these same folks will rant and rave about "ileeeeeeegals and lazy welfare people" stealing benefits from the "system"..

The same ID (passport) that would bring proof of eligibility for medical care, would also go a long way to mending the broken voting system too.. Proof positive of citizenship..

A passport at age 18 would positively identify that new adult , and allow him/her to vote and to recieve medical care.....no voter-registration necessary..

I'm gonna think on it some.

Thankx, <--- Edit, don't blame me, I gotta broken finger.

Lasher

I don't have the statistics onhand but here is my understaning of how many employers offer healthare.

1993: 75%
2000: 66%
Today: 57%

The numbers are close to that. Fewer employers offer healthcare and those that do offer worse healthcare that doesn't cover families or that requires higher copays. For alot of people the fact that they don't 'really' have healthcare is sinking in. They may have insurance, but the day they actually need it they are going to have to sprint uphill to get them to cover the expenses. THe insurer will drop them, or not cover expenses, etc. And if they recover no new insurer will touch them for life.

If we aren't going to protest and riot the fact that our elections are stolen or that our foreign and domestic military/defense policy is a web of lies I doubt we'd do it over healthcare. Maybe that is why Europe is more advanced politically, the citizens there are more proactive and don't put up with as much shit. No idea.


Alot of the 'big gubbamint' types you talk about support Republicans and the new FISA law that allows criminal eavesdropping.

or to get back what they lost...but they are less likely to protest to get somebody ELSE something they have..

That's why we see so many European protestors and strikes.. They are saying .."hell no, you cannot take (......) away from us..just try it"..

in the U.S.A.

--putting it in the category of roads, schools, fire departments, etc. If you are talking values, say "right." If you are talking policy, say "public good."

that is the rich may buy their own insurance (non-tax deductible as the UHS is for everyone, even those leeches) and goto private hospitals.
However private hospitals would NOT have the right to refuse real medical emergencies (as they can not today IIRC) coming in from ambulances. And they would NOT be allowed to screw the patent (IE it was the closest hospital for a trauma victim, so they charge private rates).
They would still only be paid UHS rates, but since that would be an exceptional circumstance (usually there are enough county hospitals near enough) it would only be an inconvenience.
The private system could fuck their rich payer any way they want, as they would be left alone and UNREGULATED...free market place and all that bullshit - except for the emergency noted above.

I wonder how fast the private system would crumble under its' own weight?
I mean the mega rich will A L W A Y S pay for their exclusivity, and im sure the LA, NY, and SF areas will have their share of private, for profit hospitals.

One way to keep the overall cost of health down is for the GOVERNMENT TO MAKE ITS OWN DRUGS!

Since MOST medical discoveries are made at universitie4s AT THE GOVERNMENT'S EXPENSE, it would be easy enough for the government to say, we actually own all these patents because we paid for the development of this drug.

They could nationalize one of the medium generic drug manufacturers, and produce US GOVERNMENT generics.
That alone would drive the cost of medicine well below the 2k per person per year (a unreasonably high figure, when I was paying for medical it never got much about 900 dollars for top-notch service per year but that was 10 years ago and a gov model would be M U C H less. The more people, the lower the per person cost).

viagra and certain recreational drugs could easily be left to the drug companies like phizer to do what they want with. but every single drug that was developed with US GOV GRANTS would become the public domain property of the US government's FDA (a real drug agency LOL).

enough of all this gouging, it's time we demanded what is rightfully ours, bought and paid for.

You're still a clown, but at least you're right about this.