Really good points, Tim, in the article and in the comment response above.

We want long lives and good quality living, like the Swedes and other Scandanavians but we don't want to pay for it like they do. A decade or two ago, the myth used to be they got their high quality of living because they had low immigration rates. No Republicans talk about THAT myth anymore.

Now the myth is we don't need nationalized health care; they didn't have it back then. Not only was the life expectancy shorter, as you pointed out, they also had fewer diseases, like Parkinson, Alsheimer, cancer, etc. People died earlier before these diseases have a chance to strike. Back then, they also did not have many medicine we take for granted, from anti-biotics to vaccine to non-intrusive diagnostic and low-impact surgical procedures. These advances cost money to create the quality of life that we want and often take for granted.

Back then, they also had more preventative care, simply by NOT watching television, NOT sitting at a computer online all day, and walking everywhere, with the exception of a few people with horses and carriages. Back then, most of the poor and especially the slaves never got to see a doctor. If they get sick, they either get well on their own eating chicken soup (if they were lucky) or they die.

Back then, they didn't have narcotics of every form, shape and sized to appeal to every addict across the socio-economic spectrum. If people get drunk, the stumble in the streets, they die. We treat addicts as people now, and provide care that, again, costs money.

Preventive care is the most efffective use of health care money, both for insured and for the uninsured.

Excellent points, Tim.  You missed one though.  They try to collect from the uninsured too and from the uninsured they also try to make up what was bargained down by insurance companies.  So everyone is paying for someone else, whether it's through taxes, copays, coinsurance, premiums, etc.  They're also increasingly suing the uninsured to collect - and winning judgments and garnishments - despite laws in many areas that demand provision of charity care...

So ultimately EVERYONE pays and some of us really are ultimately paying with death or disability.  Lack of access to health care has a lot to do with how I ended up on disability, I know that and I'll readily admit it to anyone who'll listen.  We'll be seeing more people paying this way as states tighten their safety nets, especially if they tighten the rules for or totally eliminate MNP Medicaid or continue requiring Medicaid to access specialty Public Health Care like mental health or neurology...  Society basically has two choices, accept this cruelty or accept that change MUST happen and start working towards the change.

I so much agree with points of Timothy. Danetta also gave such a vivid view of what is wrong with our USA healthcare; I mean sick-care. We don't have a healthcare system, we have a disease control system. Our USA Healthcare is broken; a national disgrace. There is no excuse for what has happened to American healthcare.

Our world's most expensive healthcare is not only locking out our working poor. In order for an employer to provide the health insurance benefits he has to charge more for products. Thus customers find it more cost effective to buy oversea where employment is not saddled by the USA most expensive healthcare. Thus, American healthcare is costing our jobs.

A-For-Da-Ble Health will save our economy,
it is in the best interest of everybody,
 if every job moves out of the country,
than (tell me!) whose gonna pay the medical fee?
  >>chorus of original song of mine.

   Fixing our healthcare is a single most important item in our economic stimulus, bailout, and recovery. This will save our automotive industry, along with other production jobs. Manufacturers will again be restored to American soil.

   Danetta mentioned Mental Health. One reason why our prisons are overcrowded is because of lack of affordable access to psychiatry. I don't say this to make an excuse for criminals; but to incarcerate criminals costs us taxpayers $40K/year. Wouldn't it be nice if by providing the needed healthcare we could pay less in prison expenses? Furthermore, the prisoner loses so much of his life behind bars; what if it could have been spared if he could see a psychiatrist when he thought he needed to?

    Danetta also mentioned Neurology. I have Aspergers Syndrome, a type of autism. It doesn't mean I can't work; it does mean I am in an unfair disadvantage trying to compete for available living wage jobs having the health benefit. I need an incredibly good job to be able to have health insurance.

"Socialized" medicine (or "nationalized") health care is not necessarily bad.  The closest parallel I have lived with was military medicine (my father was military). One distinct memory I have from about 50 years ago--eighth grade--was the entire class being taken to the dispensary for chest xrays. We stood in line, and the girls were given towels to put over their chests.  We stood in line to get shots--and when you were going overseas there were a lot of shots.  But most of the kids I knew were healthy. When a friend's mother got sick she was hospitalized immediately. 

I could live with that now; it was efficient and it worked.

This is a really important point that so many opponents of universal health care seem to forget. We ALL pay dearly, in moral, social, and financial terms, for our health care system. I've had debates with several "Blue Dog" Democrats about their reservations regarding universal health care, and their desire to avoid "paying for the slackers" is a major issue, as well as the "long wait times/lists" associated with the United States' depiction of "socialized medicine." The demonization of the "47 million unisured," (that number is surely higher now) is also a major problem. I am employed, working towards my Bachelor of Arts, from a middle class family, and I am uninsured. Does that sound like a slacker or a "Welfare Queen" to anyone?

Politicians (and lobbyists) play with language and constantly attempt to shape perceptions to frighten those who would otherwise support single-payer health care (or even the public option plan) into opposing it. "Socialist!" "Nationalized!" "Communist!" It's so pervasive in our national discourse that it's almost impossible to have a serious debate without hearing these familliar buzz words/phrases. Universal health care is NOT socialism. Frankly, I think it should be a prerequisite for any true democracy.

I feel we should have a National Health Care system.  We have the means to make it happen, so our elected officials much take the time and effort to make it happen.

As a gay man I feel that we should have equality for every person of this great nation and the world.  My lover and I got married on 7/17/08 in Martinez, CA at the courthouse.  We both feel strongly that every GLBT couple that wishes to marry should.  Our elected officals have no right to tell us that we are "second class citizens.

I am very concerned that we are not working for a single payer system. A National health care system, of any kind is better than we have now, but single payer is the ONLY real option to get the most bag for the buck. None of the arguments against it make any rational sense. Politics is the only thing holding us back, it is time, in this case to say we have had enough. Tell the politicians, single payer, we will not stand for any thing less.

I have one more comment on the I'm-not-paying-for-slacker front. I have had a full time job scene I was 13, I have honorably served my country in the 82nd airborne division, and I have raised two children that are now in college. The only public assistance I have ever taken was 6 months of unemployment when I got out of the army. I have spent most of my life volunteering in one capacity or another. I am now 47 and have been diagnosed with an autoimmune disease. Just getting out of bed in the morning is far more than I would wish on anyone. I still get up and go to the same job I have had for the last 25 years. I am not complaining, its what I do, and I have had a good life. I only have 3 years left before full retirement, my rheumatologist says 3 years will be hard to pull off, but I will just the same. Here is the problem - paying for health care after I retire. Under the current system, or lack there of, my meds alone are 25 thousand a year. My only option would be to apply for social security disability. So after 25 years of 60 and 70 hour weeks to raise my children and get them into college, not to mention volunteering in my community, I AM THE SLACKER NO ONE WANTS TO PAY FOR.

Universal health care under a single payer represents a DICTATORSHIP.  The all powerful government decides who can practice medicine and under what set of government created protocols.  The system decides what the patient can and can not have.  The government controls knowledge and research by controlling the FDA.  The government will control which medicines are available at the government pharmacy.  Your universal health record will be used to decide life and death procedures based on government issued evidence and "Cost Effective Measures" instituted by a government that balances the budget by telling you what you have to sacrifice.

If your spouse or parent needs a life saving transplant and the UNIVERSAL PROVIDER you wished for and voted for says NO, who are you going to argue with.  You can't run to Canada for care.  Perhaps you will be rich enough to go to Mexico.

To fix the system, the government needs to control the ungodly profit taking of the health care insurers.  Funny that the press and public are outraged over the AIG's raping the  public  but no one is talking about the health care insurers plundering the economy.  Seems like they not only bought congress and the president, but the press as well.

Steven, you are not a "slacker". Children in need of health care are not "slackers", neither are women who are trying to control their family size.  I could go on and on, but rational people don't have health needs because they want to get sick or injured.  They have health needs because they are human.

Thanx Jack and Stewart. I presume neither of you will be accepting assistance from Medicare in the future??

To retireate:

Is national health insurance ‘socialized medicine’?

No. Socialized medicine is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way. The health systems in Great Britain and Spain are other examples. But in most European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan they have socialized health insurance, not socialized medicine. The government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector. This is similar to how Medicare works in this country. Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis from government funds. The government does not own or manage medical practices or hospitals.

The term socialized medicine is often used to conjure up images of government bureaucratic interference in medical care. That does not describe what happens in countries with national health insurance where doctors and patients often have more clinical freedom than in the U.S., where bureaucrats attempt to direct care care through the for-profit insurance industry.

 

For Jack.

There's a fascinating article in the New Yorker dealing with the subject MORAL HAZARD..

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/08/29/050829fa_fact

Excerpt:

“Moral hazard” is the term economists use to describe the fact that insurance can change the behavior of the person being insured. If your office gives you and your co-workers all the free Pepsi you want—if your employer, in effect, offers universal Pepsi insurance—you’ll drink more Pepsi than you would have otherwise. If you have a no-deductible fire-insurance policy, you may be a little less diligent in clearing the brush away from your house.

In 1968, the economist Mark Pauly argued that moral hazard played an enormous role in medicine, and, as John Nyman writes in his book “The Theory of the Demand for Health Insurance,” Pauly’s paper has become the “single most influential article in the health economics literature.” Nyman, an economist at the University of Minnesota, says that the fear of moral hazard lies behind the thicket of co-payments and deductibles and utilization reviews which characterizes the American health-insurance system. Fear of moral hazard, Nyman writes, also explains “the general lack of enthusiasm by U.S. health economists for the expansion of health insurance coverage (for example, national health insurance or expanded Medicare benefits) in the U.S.”

What Nyman is saying is that when your insurance company requires that you make a twenty-dollar co-payment for a visit to the doctor, or when your plan includes an annual five-hundred-dollar or thousand-dollar deductible, it’s not simply an attempt to get you to pick up a larger share of your health costs. It is an attempt to make your use of the health-care system more efficient. Making you responsible for a share of the costs, the argument runs, will reduce moral hazard: you’ll no longer grab one of those free Pepsis when you aren’t really thirsty. That’s also why Nyman says that the notion of moral hazard is behind the “lack of enthusiasm” for expansion of health insurance. If you think of insurance as producing wasteful consumption of medical services, then the fact that there are forty-five million Americans without health insurance is no longer an immediate cause for alarm. After all, it’s not as if the uninsured never go to the doctor. They spend, on average, $934 a year on medical care. A moral-hazard theorist would say that they go to the doctor when they really have to. Those of us with private insurance, by contrast, consume $2,347 worth of health care a year. If a lot of that extra $1,413 is waste, then maybe the uninsured person is the truly efficient consumer of health care.

The moral-hazard argument makes sense, however, only if we consume health care in the same way that we consume other consumer goods, and to economists like Nyman this assumption is plainly absurd. We go to the doctor grudgingly, only because we’re sick. “Moral hazard is overblown,” the Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt says. “You always hear that the demand for health care is unlimited. This is just not true. People who are very well insured, who are very rich, do you see them check into the hospital because it’s free? Do people really like to go to the doctor? Do they check into the hospital instead of playing golf?”

there is part of this conversation, that seems to be left out, single payer could save this country 5 to 6 hundred billion dollars a year. save medicare/medicaid system, save corporations billions, make our products more competitive. In the long term it is not possible to fix the deficit without fixing the health care issue. and single-payer has proven to be the most cost efficient. there was a very good debate on this issue on this forum just last week i think.

Steven, you are very right.  Single payer would, of necessity, result in standard nationwide formularies and protocols. Further, I just read in the paper this weekend that only 2% (this is not a typo) of hospitals in the U.S. have fully integrated electronic records systems. That would change.

This whole health system is broke a long time ago, it doesn't work anymore. Even for those who have health insurance, like I do, we never know exactly how much will be covered and how much will be our "out of the pocket". The reason for that is that are hundreds of ‘codes' for every single diagnostic and of course, depending on those codes (that we never know) could be covered or not. Many times physicians asked me for tests that I already did one month ago, but they want again because they couldn't contact the other doctor's office. I am struggling with a lab bill from 2007 because the codes on the doctor's request to the lab were wrong, so I have been calling my insurance in that time Blue Cross Blue Shield, the lab where I did my tests, the doctor's office without any success. Just to make worse, I no long work for that employer, no longer have that insurance and I even moved to different city and state and now I am fighting to get this matter resolved since I have received countless statements and letter threatening to take this to my credit report or dealing with a collection agency. Look, it is not my fault, I didn't ask for those exams. It is pretty ‘comfortable' for both labs and doctors make you sign a term of responsibility on something that you have no clue what it is and could be important. Look I am not a doctor, so if a doctor ask for something I have to trust because I have no idea what he/she is suspecting on me and wants to check on an exam. Everybody has different health insurance coverage since this is dictated by our employers, and it is impossible knowing in advance how much it will be covered, besides doctors, hospitals don't feel shy about prices on those services.

Another example, using Tim's testimony, what can also happens is regarding use of emergency services. I think honestly it is infamous this thing that call a doctor office after 5:30 PM an answering service will tell you to go to an emergency room. Again we are not doctors, I don't know if what I am feeling can be a life threatening or not, or could become worst if not treated. I had an episode on day before Christmas in 2007. I was feeling miserable, vomiting, sick, lots of body ache, my neck was stiff and a terrible headache but no fever, I simply couldn't move. After trying all sort of over the counter Tylenol, Ibupofren, etc, I went to my family doctor in the morning (in a weekday), he examined me and told me that could be something related to stress, or (fantastic this one) due to my new very expensive orthopedic mattress, and to be honest he joked because he was thinking that I was making a big deal of it. Well he prescribed some relaxing medicine and I went home. When night came I was feeling pretty bad, and since the doctor's office was already closed (6:30 PM), I had to go the hospital, so I went. I believe hospital and emergencies should be used for EMERGENCY something like a car accident, poisoning, gun shot, heart attack etc. Well after a long wait I registered myself, gave my insurance card, they took a copy of my driver license, signed papers and 2 hours later finally I got some doctor. He ran a flu test and found out that I had Flu. Then I took an X-ray to see my lungs and I had a little bit of pneumonia. Well, Flu is no fun but this could be diagnostic on any doctor's visit no need for rush to a hospital. After 2 weeks I was feeling great again, then the surprise. I found weird that I didn't see any hospital or doctor's bill in the mail, but I thought ‘well takes some time to be processed'. I decided to call the hospital asking for a status on that. They told me that it was already sent to a collection agency and my credit history damaged already. I was in shock and told them that I never received any communication from them. They told me that they sent me the bill but it returned with the wrong address, the apartment number was missing. I was furious, first it was passed just 3 weeks from the incident also I gave all correct information, my cellular phone, home phone and THEY COPIED MY DRIVER LICENSE which had the full address. Just to make it worst the bill was showing a very high amount and I was told that the doctor that treated me was out of the network! Hello!!! In an emergency room I can't start asking who will be the doctor and if he/she belongs to my health insurance. In summary another long battle with lawyers and insurance. At least I won.

I can write thousands of case similar or worst than mine but there are so many things wrong in this system. One of the reasons for emergency being so expensive is physicians just working in "clerk office" time, but nobody can plan to be sick within business hours. I believe we should have in any city/neighborhood at least one family practice doctor that works in different shifts.

I am sorry you all, I wrote too much =)
But when it is something related to health... it just makes me nuts, I wish we ALL could have a better health system. That is why I keep fighting for it!

Manuela, Don't apologize.  The health care "system" in this country is a mess.  When the "care" (or lack thereof) causes more stress than the disease or injury, we should know that we're in trouble.

The health care in this country is rationed.  Only those who can afford insurance get health care, and we pay for everyone else's.  The Emergency Department should be just that--for emergencies.  Instead, it is forced to deal with--and staff for--those with no insurance because the law says they must treat everyone who presents with medical complaints.  (Do you know how many of them give false names and addresses? billing expenses and collection efforts cost money too.) The state funds reimbursing hospitals for free care has run dry.  Free care?  don't make  me laugh.  We're all paying for it and all its ancillary costs.

Ron du Bois 612 S. Kings St. Stillwater, OK, 74074

HEALTHCARE FOR MY NEIGHBORS?   Editorial, 500 words   Our medical and medical insurance ethos sadly is that sick people are good for business.  That health care should be a money making machine is the mentality of a nation tricked into believing for-profit health care and medical insurance are superior to national health care as practiced in every other industrialized nation.  In contrast the ethos of national healthcare is to keep people healthy in order to save buckets of money. It works. Every nation with national health care delivers health care for all at a fraction of the cost Americans pay. The incentives of public health care are opposite to those of a for-profit system.       I am a WWll veteran.  My response to conservatives who are certain government can’t do anything right is that I am grateful for VA health care and for Medicare, both run by “the  government” and paid for in the same way we pay for public education and the fire department, i.e., through public taxation.     “In the box” thinking places profit over the health of the nation. It prevents Americans from having  full medical insurance from day one. Unlike citizens of every other industrialized nation, Americans must  wait until old age to get 80% rather than total coverage as in other nations.         We are the only industrialized nation in the world in which parents are forced to advertise in the local newspaper that an account has been set up at a lcal bank to accept donations to pay for treatment of a child with life threatening cancer. No Canadian, French, or English parent would need to “pass the hat” or to ask for charity in order to save the life of a child. In other nations it is never “charity”, but “healthcare with dignity.”      We are the only nation where private insurance companies can restrict services to a particular state forcing clients to travel thousands of miles for treatment, or dictate where a client  can get a blood transfusuon, or deny payment for a bone marrow donor search.     “Why should I pay for the health care of my neighbors?” is the outraged cry of conservatives. With national healthcare the answers are:  (1) My neighbors pay for mine. (2) It is the ethical thing to do.  (3) costs are half or less than half of what we pay now and would cover everyone.      Every other advanced nation pays a fraction of what the U.S. does. Canadians pay $3,000 per capita to cover everyone while the U.S. pays $7,000 per capita and leaves out 47 million plus an equal number of at risk underinsured souls.  European nations pay a third of what we do with better outcomes.     A National health care system would make us feel good about ourselves. At last we could  say with pride to the world, “We are willing to pay for the healthcare of our neighbors just like everyone else.” Oklahoma’s only universal healthcare website is: http:// oklahomansforuniversalhealth.org  Please check it out.    Ron du Bois

Having lived in several western countries, one of which is the USA, I have formed a very clear picture of which public health systems work well, to the general benefit and satisfaction of the populace as a whole and which do not. Public health systems throughout most of the developed world operate very well and cover all members of the society regardless of income level; they are based on the needs of the patient and paid for via taxes levied on all members of the society.  The cost of care under those systems is far lower than the costs for the same, or worse care in the USA. Don't fool yourself into believing that the overall quality of health care in the USA is the best in the world, it isn't.  Yes, you do have most of the extremely expensive high tech medical equipment in the world and a lot of very fancy hospitals with huge overheads, but that does not constitute effective health care. 
 Perhaps the best indicator of the value of those much maligned public health care systems is that they are very popular and that people don't mind paying a reasonable health care tax while they are in employment, in order to pay for their medical care throughout their lifetime.
The sole exception is the USA, where there is no such thing as a "Health Care System". (Look up the definition of a system on Wikipedia.) What there is in the USA is a cobbled together mess of competing business interests who see patients as revenue sources, not human beings with health problems. The delivery of effective health care is a byproduct of this industry.

So why is health care in the USA in this parlous state?

 The USA has a public which, in general, has been very poorly educated, has no true picture of the world outside the local state, and has been indoctinated into believing that "government" is totally unnecessary and the enemy of freedom. The myth of the "rugged individual" has been propagated as the "correct" model for every "red-blooded" american. In view of the way in which the US government is a wholly owned subsidiary of a small political class of oligarchs and is manipulated for the benefit of that political class to the harm of the general public, the myth of goverment as a hazard may be a true statement.  But, if so, it merely reflects the ignorance, selfishness and lack of vision of far too many US citizens. I find it hilarious that the USA is ostensibly and vociferously a very religious country, and yet it consistently refuses to implement its so called religious beliefs. I believe that the USA is very religious, but that its god is the US dollar and its guiding moral principle is that anything that maximises the profits of US business is correct moral behaviour, even though that involves the unnecessary suffering and death of ordinary people.
If you want a government that truly represents the interests of all of its people, it is essential to prevent the use of private money by that small class of oligarchs to bribe legislators and regulators.  The US government operates on bribery, (which we are not supposed to call bribery, the politically correct term is "election campaign contributions", it then becomes possible for the politicians and regulators to deny, angrily, any suggestion that they accept bribes to provide regulatory and tax relief to the special interests paying that money.).
So, if you want a decent public health and social security system that is operated for the benefit of the US population as a whole, you must start by reforming your government so that it is a democratic government and not the plaything of a very small, very selfish minority. If you can pass that very high hurdle, you may be able to enter into the company of compassionate societies that value all of their members. Then, and only then, will you be able to create a US society where medical care, a useful educational system and an effective social services system are the birthright of all americans. 

Universal single payer health care access for all is the only thing that makes sense.  We need to fix our tax code so that the wealthy are paying their fair share without all the loopholes in the present system.  Fund health care as we fund police, fire, schools and other things as said for the public safety and well being of all citizens.  Health care should be considered a basic right not a privilege of those who can afford it.  We need better pay for primary caregivers (MD's, nurses and advanced practice nurses).  Some specialists are paid too highly.  Oh yes, all of the arguments about length of schooling and debt just don't hold water.  As a retired Emergency Dept. nurse, and a resident of a very rural state (NM) with long travel times between rural areas and trauma centers, I could go on forever about many issues.

   I think that the real question should be this: Who pays for the over insured?

That’s right, the over insured. The ones that run down to the doctor and demand tens of thousands of dollars worth of care for a health that could have been fixed by conservative care and true preventative care. Lets face it, modern medicine is not health care, it is sick care. There is no such thing as preventative medicine… Ok, now that you are angry at me and saying things to your self like “no way, I get yearly check ups, breast or prostate exams (depending on gender of course) and that is preventative care.” No, sorry, that is early detection, not prevention. I don’t argue the validity, just the classification. That being said, I fail to see why I should pay $1200 a month of very hard earned money to pay for a policy because some other policy holder needs extra care because he is 150lb over weight, eats fast food lunches every day, thinks that diet sodas with aspartame is a health drink and exercise is walking to the car. No, I don’t think so. I also don’t owe that person anything. Nor should I pay for that hypochondriac that runs to the doctor with a cold or flu, demanding antibiotics for a viral condition (antibiotics kill bacteria, not viruses. Never have, never will) tell them to drink lots of fluid, rest and get out of my clinic.

            One thing I have noted as doctor is that many of the so-called free loaders are, in fact, healthier. They understand that if they get sick they can’t afford it so they are proactive when it comes to their health. They are by far more receptive to actively changing their poor health habits and improving their overall health and well being. If that is the cost of no insurance then everyone should cancel his or her policy now.

I wish that those who have a superiority complex because they think they "pay their own way" would realize that if no one paid to receive their goods or services, they would have absolutely nothing.

Right on, Cecily. Nobody truly pay their own way in everything. We all live in an interdependent web of social obligations and responsibilities where everyone receives and gives. We must collectively do right by all those who cannot do right for themselves individually. It's the obligation of being a part of society. It's the meaning of civil, civic duties, civilization...how we treat the weakest members among us.

Universal Coverage is easy to understand.
Tax the WORKING un-insured for health care. They that work without health care, will be paying for the coverage. You do understand this, no?
It eliminates the health care cost to manufactures / employers reducing their cost, making them more competitive against companies in the countries that have government health care, which is about every country in the world market. You do understand this no?
Should an employer wish to hire better talent from another company, the employee is afraid to change health plans least they fall into a waiting period or pre-existing condition. People do not change job situations for fear of loosing their coverage. You do understand this, no?
NO and there is not any health care system in the entire universe that is perfect. It can not be done. Accept this as a given, please. Do not be swayed by ancidotal stories of health care horrors in OTHER countries. We have horror stories with our current situation. We can do better, no?
Would you not agree, the primary goal of a "company" is to take in as much money as legally possible, and dispense or spend as little as possible, yes?.... Then by definition a health insurance company's goal is to take as much money as possible from you and your employer, and return as little as they must. Do you understand this? They do not what to pay for your hospital bill. The situation got so bad the State of Georgia had to pass a bill requiring insurance companies to pay claims within 30 days. They were not paying in vain hope that the claiment would to avoid a bad credit mark.
On the other hand, government will take / tax as much as We The People allow them, and must spend as much as We The People demand. Would you agree to this? We The People take control. I like the plan that establishes in my community, a "Health Board" much like a school borad, and they decide how and where to spend the money.
And would it trouble you to know that my wife a nurse, spends on average over the work week, one entire work day sitting at her desk, on hold to the insurance pre-approval customer no service agents? Then understand one reason health care cost so much. She is paid to sit down, wait, and stare at a computer screen until pre-approval is given for up to 8 hours. And this is the same with every doctor in the clinic of 50 doctors. 400 hours on hold.
I hope that this clears up some of the confusion. It is very simple to understand, no?

Here's my personal example of being responsible for my health and health insurance.  I pay $246.00 a month for $2500.00 deductible. I schedule a yearly visit with my health care provider along with a mammogram and bloodwork labs as the doctor orders. Two years ago the clinic started charging $125.00 for the Dr. visit PLUS $187.00 for a preventive care visit!!!! When I inquired as to why I was charged over $300.00 for a 20 minute visit I was told Medicare requires that. I am not on Medicare!  The bloodwork alone was over $300.00 in addition!  I'm a vegetarian, exercise regularly and am on no medication.  I am extremely grateful for my good health.  It's like being penalized for being responible. 

To give my insurance company credit, this past year I broke my wrist and was diagnosed with a bone tumor. The tumor had to be removed and the wrist surgically repaired to the tune of  $80,000.00! The insurance paid 100 per cent after my $2500. deductible. They also reduced the charges that they would pay down to $60,000.00 and I am not responsible for the difference.  Again, I am very grateful. But $80,000.00!!??

I am an advocate of universal single payer health insurance and write to my congresspersons and the President on a regular basis. I also contribute to organizations that are working for single payer. And I vote! 

I also agree that universal health insurance would be the best way to start getting the economy headed in the right direction.

Health care in this country is really a crime.  My heart breaks when I read or see what is happening to so many people.

Here's my personal example of being responsible for my health and health insurance.  I pay $246.00 a month for $2500.00 deductible. I schedule a yearly visit with my health care provider along with a mammogram and bloodwork labs as the doctor orders. Two years ago the clinic started charging $125.00 for the Dr. visit PLUS $187.00 for a preventive care visit!!!! When I inquired as to why I was charged over $300.00 for a 20 minute visit I was told Medicare requires that. I am not on Medicare!  The bloodwork alone was over $300.00 in addition!  I'm a vegetarian, exercise regularly and am on no medication.  I am extremely grateful for my good health.  It's like being penalized for being responible. 

To give my insurance company credit, this past year I broke my wrist and was diagnosed with a bone tumor. The tumor had to be removed and the wrist surgically repaired to the tune of  $80,000.00! The insurance paid 100 per cent after my $2500. deductible. They also reduced the charges that they would pay down to $60,000.00 and I am not responsible for the difference.  Again, I am very grateful. But $80,000.00!!??

I am an advocate of universal single payer health insurance and write to my congresspersons and the President on a regular basis. I also contribute to organizations that are working for single payer. And I vote! 

I also agree that universal health insurance would be the best way to start getting the economy headed in the right direction.

Health care in this country is really a crime.  My heart breaks when I read or see what is happening to so many people.

The Emergency Room is not the place for uninsured children (or adults, but my experience is working in a pediatric emergency department) with the sniffles, slight, cough, or slight fever.  Education needs to be done about how to treat kids at home for minor colds.  More places and clinics need to be available for those who can't afford to pay. Those who are working and insured have to pay high co-pays when they come to the emergency room.  If people are abusing the use of the emergency room then there are longer waiting times for those people who are truly sick or injured who actually need it.  There needs to be a better, less expensive place to take kids for uncompensated care.  There needs to be more teaching to parents and all people about how to take care of themselves and their child. 
if slight fever: Tylenol.  If uncontrolled then call your doctor.
Babies are a little different, they can get sicker faster...

(not formal health care advice...just common sense everyone SHOULD have)

It is great to read the many intelligent comments above by people who truly seem to understand this issue, or at least can get beyond the scare-tactics used to make less educated people oppose the idea of single-payer so vehemently. It makes me sad to see how brainwashed many Americans are; they have completely lost sight of how the world works. I can't think of anyone to blame but themselves for their ignorance-they should not be arguing about an issue that they don't understand.
I could share a book's worth of horror stories just from my past experience; I was "insured" up until graduating with my master's degree from Georgetown almost 1 year ago. I am still battling my previous insurance companies to cover my claims from 2005-2007 (everyone else who is still doing this will probably agree with me that private insurance is FUBAR!). Any healthcare I've been able to afford since losing my health insurance has only added to the fictitious list of "pre-existing conditions" that prevents me from being approved for any individual health insurance. I couldn't find a full-time job after graduating; therefore, no insurance. Now that I've relocated to AZ for a full time job, I would have health insurance as a benefit through that, but because of the way the laws are out here they can still deny me for the group's health plan because of my pre-existing conditions (which are not medical "conditions" at all-but claims representatives don't know much except the billing codes).
A previous post mentions that we've lived since 1776 without any type of nationalized health insurance. Well, if this person knew their history, they'd also know that we lived without HMOs and private insurance conglomerates until the Nixon era; why should we not question the need for them anymore?
My masters degree is in Physiology, complementary and alternative medicine, and my plan was to attend medical school to be a physician after that (what I learned about medicine in this program I believe should be taught to all med students). I refuse to be a physician in this climate, and many current physicians are absolutely fed up! The Physicians for a National Health Program are one large group that is backing single payer-www.pnhp.org-for all those who think that doctors would be sick at the idea of the government telling them how they must treat their patients and what they can be paid. Why do you think there is such a shortage of primary care physicians? They aren't paid enough, and med students realize this as they are trying to see how they will pay off their debt. This leads them to specialize in a field that will pay more; thus leaving people to see 20 different physicians for every separate organ system or body part that has been separated from the rest (I'm quite certain they are all still connected), and take an endless number of meds- 1 for one condition, then often a 2nd to counteract the side effects of the first...this is unnecessary and highly dangerous up to a point; but surprise- highly profitable for insurance companies. Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies are the ones controlling how physicians can practice now: who they can see, what they can prescribe as treatments, what tests they can order, and what they can be paid. I think it is so very unpatriotic to say that we trust these corporations to work for our best interests, rather than trust the government to place adequate restrictions on them so that the important decisions are left up to the physicians. Without that change, I refuse to go to medical school to put in all the time, effort, and money so that I can be a primary care doctor that emphasizes preventative care; because my hands would be tied. And I am not going to specialize in plastic surgery, or neonatology, or any other high paying specialty when good primary care is out of reach for so many.
I could say so much more about this issue, and I have been preaching about it for years now (I'm only 25). Eventually, either the problem will be solved, or all those who want to side with capitalism and remain ignorant will eventually see the light for themselves, perhaps when they are forced to file for bankruptcy due to their medical bills.

Lots of excellent points in this discussion. Unfortunately we "ain't seen nothin' yet".  Concervating projections (from the U.S. Census Bureau) state that the U.S. will have a population of 439 million by 2050--a 40% increase. Other demographic experts project even higher increases.

Also from the Census Bureau: 71.7% of U.S. women (responsibly) complete their families with two or fewer biological children.  The other 28.3% have three, five, eighteen children. 

The only way to BEGIN to handle this growth is to have an integrated single payer system. The current patchwork system does not work.

Times are hard. Major changes are needed. In this vein, more Americans are coming to see the benefits of reforming our health care "non-system".  Public spirited Americans have been trying to do this for the past 75 years but have been thwarted by special interests.

Although strongly in favor of universal coverage, FDR decided national health care insurance was too controversial a topic and de-emphasized it in favor of pushing through Social Security. The insurance, physician and hospital lobbies, which still exist today, were simply too strong. Since then, initiatives were put forth by several other administrations to establish national health care insurance. The only real legislative successes were Medicaid and Medicare under Johnson and SCHIP for children under Clinton (whose broader reform effort was sunk by the insurance industry and self-interested others).

According to Harvard economist David Cutler, about 20,000 Americans die each year due to lack of insurance. Is this the America that we want to pass on to our children?

As caring human beings, we have to look at solutions, not repeat the empty negative rhetoric we hear on talk radio or at political conventions. I am a former Republican elected official, but I know that the public wants universal coverage right now and demands a simple way to receive it. If politicians of both parties continue to oppose real reform, Congress will continue to lose taxpayer confidence and deservedly so.

Now is the time for universal health insurance to finally be enacted. How? We have an obvious solution to the worsening healthcare access crisis: expand Medicare to cover all.

Private providers will continue to deliver health care and physician relationships will be preserved, as they are for Medicare recipients right now. It is not "socialism," the outlandish charge made by fanatics when a single-payer system is discussed, any more than the Veterans Administration hospitals are communism. And, do you know of any patriotic older Americans who are so unhappy with socialistic Medicare that they want to give it up?

Why? Because Medicare works. When combined with supplemental private policies, it currently provides a base level of coverage for those over 65, plus more coverage as desired. Why not expand it to all age groups?
 
Some say total costs will go up; this charge is largely unfounded. Cost shifting is not the same as cost increases. And if total costs do go up somewhat, isn't it money well spent versus the disaster in Iraq or the weird ear-marks made by both parties?
Medicare administrative costs are much lower than the private insurance
sector, which spends about one-third of our premium dollars on
marketing-related costs. Cost savings will be achieved. Further, if current Medicare efforts regarding determining best medical practices are expanded under a single payer system, more cost savings can be obtained and largely offset any increased systemic costs needed to cover those between jobs, early retirees and the uninsured working stiff left out in the cold by his employer who fails to provide him with this option.

Yes, there will be cost-shifting from businesses to government. This
will make our industries more competitive with foreign manufacturing,
which does not pay health benefits to its employees. That's a real stimulus for American car manufacturers.
 
And there will be cost shifting from state and local government, which
are now picking up part of the tab for indigents and its employees, to the federal government where it belongs. This may not solve our State budget crisis, but it sure won't hurt.

 As someone who has made his living as an executive in the for-profit healthcare system, I understand well "the dirty little secret" why many healthcare related businesses, professionals and organizations are opposed to expansion of Medicare: it may lower their earnings. For this reason, the extent of lobbying by these groups cannot be underestimated. However, health care providers and political figures must do the right thing to regain the confidence of the public. And that is Medicare coverage for all!

 

It should not be necessary to tell horror stories. What if I came up with an idea that allowed me to profit from the misfortunes of others? Or a way to extort money from others citizens without providing ANY real service, in fact by denying service?  How about a scam to accept money for a service I did not intend to provide? What would happen? Would this not be a crime? The answer is no, it is insurance.

This country is no different than any other imperial power in history. The citizens must be controlled or they will not pay homage to the ruling class. Throughout history this has been accomplished through religion and ignorance. An overwhelming fear that they could not exist without their benevolent rulers. The ruling class withholds that which should be, must be, essential to the human condition. In fact, that which is essential to life itself. Once upon a time, the ruling class could control the citizenry simply be restricting food, housing, and education. It is a little more complicated now but the principles are the same. Restrict that which we believe to be the  necessities of life, health care, education, housing. Make the citizenry believe they cannot live without the benevolence of the ruling class. Thus the citizens continue to pay homage, and our rulers smile upon us.

I've already sent two e-mails to Obauma  "the baum" about how we should find Insurance company owners or the companies tha would Glean portions of health care plans to this cause as to not put it all on the poor and the working class tax payers of America