So, We all know that obviously heath care in this country is not what it once was. I would like to discuss why you are for or against reform. Furthermore, What would you reform if you were able to make these decisions?
For me I think a single payer public option is the best option at this point. 1/6th of our total GDP is made from the health care sector. Therefore we make 15% of the countries total income off sick people. However, that may sound like a good thing that must mean our healthcare is cutting edge. The sad fact is america ranks 19th in the world in healthcare quality. I am in a union we have excellent insurance however a foreman I worked with lost his wife to cancer and even after our insurance which caps out at 250,000 he had to sell 2 houses and 2 cars just to pay his bills. Medical bills in america are the primary reason for bankruptcy and home foreclosure.

I know a lot of you will say I don't want to fund a government asshole to screw up healthcare like they screw everything else up. I feel your pain, but I contend that Canada's health care system has a 1.5% overhead compared to 17% in america. Most of the overhead coming from administrative costs. All these insurance companies are is a middle man in the grand scheme. Anyhow thats my rant for now what do you think, and why?
By the way I would love to hear from folks in other industrialized countries that have universal health care.

Because it will always cost more than the previous year, because we will have to pay for MORE gov employees who will be rude/slow just like any other gov agency when you need them. Because it won't stop some whore who makes less than 25k a year from having 3 kids. Liberals want women to be able to abort an unborn child because they should have the right to choose what happens to their own body but when it comes to insurance I have no say over mine. Everyone pays except illegals and poor people... Where's the "change"? Sounds eerily familiar to the system we already have....

"Single payer" does not mean the government will run the hospitals. I'll use Canada as an example because the OP mentioned it already. In Canada, EVERY citizen is covered by a "government" insurance program, but the hospitals are PRIVATELY owned (just like ours are).

where's the "change"? It should be obvious. Under a single payer, universal coverage system, EVERY American citizen would be covered. Right now as it stands, we spend MORE money than any other country on health care and don't even cover all our citizens while insurance companies are bringing in ridiculous profits (insurance industry profits are up about 400% in the last few years)

Health care costs only rise because the insurance companies and hospitals have to make a profit. Remove the profit motive, and rates will not rise nearly as quickly as we have seen recently.

__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want, makes Santa Claus pretty much obsolete.

you take an interesting stance fitch. The thing is you seem to agree it is broken in the first place. You also didn't furnish a constructive solution that makes sense to you. The point i make is you are getting hit on the front and the back in the front you are hit with your costs going up because people don't or can't pay their medical bills. then when the costs get so high no one can pay them foreclosures happen and we are forced to prop up financial institutions. What seems so outrageous about taking the middle man out of the equation? wouldn't a simple policy change like performance benchmarks fix your main issue that it would bring in complacency in the workers? We spend the most on healthcare of any nation somewhere around 7,000 a year each person. Yet, canadians and british live an average of 3 years longer than we do. we also have the most overpriced drugs in the world, so overpriced that people with insurance can't afford them all because your insurance caps out. Then they are subsidized and guess what we all pay. doesn't seem right to feed money directly to these guys to me. Thanks for the input though fitch i appreciate it.

the only real issue with american health care I have is it's ridiculous cost. It is waaay to expensive. Like someone said, the US ranks 19th. If you look at the nations that stand before it, they spend a lot less on health care, and get more quality.

The idea of having the government intervene to control those costs is a good thing, in my view. They say it will cost 1 trillion over the next 10 years, or something like that. But the current system will cost 1.6 trillion over the next 10 years.

There's also something to be done about malpractice lawsuits in this country. There seems to be a new batch of lawyers that make their living screwing over insurance companies and doctors. Malpractice will never go away, but there seems to be a problem with doctors taking on procedures they do not fully understand for the sake of profit.

I know for a fact that doctors sometimes receive only 1 weekend of training for "out patient" procedures. These procedures, are identified as "out patient" to make them seem less risky. These procedures carry all the risks of actual open-your-gut surgery, but doctors perform 5-6 per day, just to make a buck....

these types of practices are what drive costs up....

I agree with most of that. lawsuits in general are out of control. However in the end it is the doctors that suffer the insurance companies make it back by raising rates. Doctors pay WAY too much in insurance.

The problem I have is that anytime the gov consolidates power it will try anything in it's ability to hold on to it. So if 10 years out health-care ends up costing 20% more than was estimated the gov will simply raise taxes to make up for it. I mean when has gov ever run a program of this size efficiently? How about we fix our current clusterf*ck of a problem that was created by the far left, social security. Who's to say the gov doesn't blow the healthcare funds as they did with SS, or maybe we can calculate what it will cost to fix SS and let the tax payers sit on that before asking them to pay for this new program. It's always been about money and money=power which is why the democrats didn't reform SS when Bush was in office. The thrift savings plan is offered to gov employees and military people but why can't the average joe participate? I don't enjoy violence but I also have a fanatical obsession with small government and it's just a matter of time before someone crosses the line (think of timothy mcveigh x 100) Lets start with reforming tort laws and eliminate pre-existing conditions and move from there.

I just got a letter from my private insurance company letting me know that they are getting rid of pre-existing conditions on their policies. I think the insurance companies must already see the writing on the wall for that.

__________________
King David was hit by a rock and knocked off his donkey. . . he was not STONED OFF HIS ASS.

In other words, you'd rather blame democrats for all the country's problems rather than suggest any actual solutions to those problems.

The "party of no" is alive and well, folks.

If you'll think back to when Bush was in office, who controlled the House and Senate? The republicans. The democrats were the minority, and as such, it would have been impossible for them to garner support for any REAL social security reform. If you'll also remember, Bush's plan was to privatize social security, meaning your social security dollars would be invested in WALL STREET. Let's all thank our lucky stars that didn't happen, or SS would be much worse for the wear than it is now.

Why is SS's unfunded liability growing? Well, it has a lot to do with an increase in our aging population (baby boomers). Republicans traditionally block any measures to raise taxes to address this problem, which is a necessary "evil" that comes along with funding these programs in the first place. You can't pay for them if you can't raise the money, can you? You can't raise the money if you can't raise the taxes. Do you see the cycle?

__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want, makes Santa Claus pretty much obsolete.

Don't pretend like you know me because you don't, I'm a registered democrat and voted for Obama.
If there is anyone out there who doesn't have a clue, this is the best visual presentation I ever saw... Now don't be mad just remember who did this......






Franklin Delano. Roosevelt

32nd. President, Democrat

Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945

introduced Social Security (FICA) Program.



He Promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put in would go into an "Independent Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:

----------THEN---------------------------------------------------



Dwight David Eisenhower

34th. President, Republican,

Term of Office: January 20, 1953 to January 20, 1961

1958 is the first year that Congress, not President Eisenhower, voted to remove funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for Congress to spend. It was a Democratically controlled Congress.

Congress' logic at that time was that there was so much money in the Social Security Fund that it would never run out or be used up for the purpose it was intended and set aside for.





-------------WORSE STILL------------------------------------------------



Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th. President, Democrat

Term of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969



Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?


Answer: It was the Democratically Controlled House and Senate during Lyndon Johnson's term.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security

(FICA) withholding?

Answer: The Democratic Party.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------



William Jefferson Clinton

(Bill Clinton)

42nd. President

Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001



Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.

(Al Gore)

45th. Vice President

Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001

Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

------------------BUT THE STRAW THAT REALLY BROKE THE CAMEL'S BACK !-------------------------------------------------



James Earl Carter, Jr

(Jimmy Carter)

39th President, Democrat

Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981



Question: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

ANSWER: That's right! JAMES EARL CARTER, JR. AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
IMMIGRANTS MOVED INTO THIS COUNTRY, AND AT AGE 65, BEGAN TO RECEIVE SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS: THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY GAVE THESE PAYMENTS TO THEM, EVEN THOUGH THEY NEVER PAID A DIME INTO IT!



----------------------------------------------------------------------

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!



And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!


If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes WILL evolve! . Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so. But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to? Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.



----------------------------------------------------------------------



Thomas Jefferson

3rd. President, Democrat

Term of Office: January 20, 1777 to January 20, 1781

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have".