State of The Union

National health care could be accomplished with some broad strokes:

(1) EVERYONE pays into the system. The destitute would still receive emergency care, but the line would be strictly enforced. No more middle classers saying: "I can't afford health insurance," then passing the bill on to everyone else.

(2) Regional bureaus would administer the plan. No more overlapping, patchwork systems where doctors participate with some plans and not others. One region, one plan.

(3) Caps on advertising. Strict caps. No more 500 commercials a day for Lipitor. Prescription drugs shouldn't be advertised. If your doctor thinks you need a drug, then it's prescribed. You don't need "Uncle Joe" talking about Viagra.

(4) There could still be employer-based health care, but everyone has to participate at the minimum level required of all citizens. Again, no more saying: "I can't afford health insurance," then passing the buck.

 

No surprise, really, that the blue-staters intend to run against him until they beat him.

The same sort of madness infects the other side when it comes to She Who Shall Not Be Named.

 

Universal health care, like public education, public transit, highways, water, hydro, are all things that reasonable people expect government to provide--unless you want to return to some sort of 19th century Darwinism.

And the "efficiency" argument doesn't hold water. The U.S. corporate health care system is more costly and less efficient than the majority of government funded systems. And to say "the majority of your paycheque" will be needed to cover it is ridiculous because there is no evidence to support that. And I'm not sure where you come up "waiting for months, even years for simple procedures" unless it's the private health insurance lobby. In universal health care, the government doesn't "run" the system. The federal and (in our case) provincial governments fund it and work with the stakeholders to determine the infrastruture.

I'd be interested in knowing what percentage of your taxes go to finance the defense budget.

 

There's a huge difference between not being denied basic health care and having equal access. i.e. the family making $40,000 a year obtains the same level of care as the single guy making $200,000.

And please stop this equating health care with car insurance. It's not only irrelevant, it's stupid.

 

I wasn't equating it. If anything, I was pointing out the lack of logic in government forcing people to have car insurance, but then looking the other way when millions are without health coverage.

 

Huh?
Millions are without health coverage because you don't have a universal, government funded health care system.

Mandatory car insurance has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

This is confusing because you seem to think I'm arguing with you when I'm really not.

But I can guarantee that whatever plan gets approved, probably when I'm old and gray and down to my last tooth, it won't be the "universal, government-funded health care system." Nor do I really want it to be.

What I want is what I said before: A national plan administered by regional bureaus. Everyone would still have choices of plans, etc. Obviously a single person's needs are going to be different from a family of five's.

The car insurance example was simply an example of government mandating that people have insurance.

But I certainly don't want to have a narrow, government-funded plan if it disregards personal needs, health of the insured, etc.

 

Umm, people are denied health insurance on a regular basis. They call it a denial for a pre-existing condition, if they go for a private pay plan.
If they go to work for a small business, the cost to the employer is huge and gets passed on to everyone else. While employers can't deny for that, they think of some other reason not to hire them.
And the U.S. government can and currently runs a national healthcare system efficiently. It is called the VA and Tricare, and while you'll hear some VA horror stories, they aren't any worse than any other hospital horror story.
Tricare is so good, it should be a model, but instead the prescription drug benefit got so hacked up by lobbyists and everyone else, Part D is now the exact opposite of tricare on every major point.
Too much money is on the line for the U.S. to push through a major reform. It just isn't going to happen.
And for every story about a Canadian coming to the U.S., you can find a story on a Canadian who is pleased with the system.

 

DyePack makes a whole bunch of sense here. My government often proves itself less than competent when it attempts to provide the services I expect of a government. I'm pretty sure I don't want it involved in my health.

But a national plan administered by regional bureaus -- which would take into account the different needs in different areas -- is something I could get behind.

 

Dude.... fucker might get subpoena'd if there is a big enough of a tsunami of change on the hill in a couple months.

Very much related to his approval rating.