Personal or government responsibility???

[Dale]

will the overall cost of healthcare go down?? if it will.....then I'm all for it. I have no insurance right now because we can't afford it. I have NO CLUE what a national healthplan would cost me.....but if its cheaper than what they offer now for a family of 4....i'm all for it.

ya'll can hiss and boo all you want. chances are you have and can AFFORD insurance. I can't.....so bite me

If a national healthcare plan will make it more expensive...then im moving out of the country

Well Nicci in Canada we have a national plan and I believe it costs us more per visit and operation than your system. I do find it funny that the rich here in Canada tend to go to USA for operations. I thing Shay is right its the drug companys and doctors who need to be regulated.

But if your going to move, I could always use a little sister heheheheh

[Dale]

Perspective from a country that has "universal" health care:

I am 100% in favor of national health care. I firmly believe that health care and education are the cornerstones of a free and democratic society and that they must be available to everyone equally, without question and without first having to check whether or not you can afford it.

The upside of universal health care, of course, is that everyone gets treated without question and doctors have the luxury of making medical decisions based on what will actually help the patient without first having to fuss and fret over the cost or call some HMO to ask permission. This means even the poorest of the poor gets an MRI if an MRI is needed to make a diagnosis and that poor person doesn't see a bill for it at the end.

The downside is that the funding for this comes from tax dollars, which means a tax hike across the board (people below or near the poverty line typically don't have to pay a cent). For example, my wife and I pay out $88 per month for our coverage (total, not each). And since virtually everyone is putting into the kitty but not everyone is necessarily taking out, overall coverage costs are lower on a per person basis. Also on the downside, if the government chooses to keep costs down, they tend to do so by cutting staff, which leads to longer wait times for treatment, which leads to higher mortality rates due to slow service. And, if you're living in a place that is prepared to cut costs to the bone to artificially balance a budget that doesn't really need balancing, such as the province in which I'm living right now, some services become pay-as-you-go, irrespective of the supposed "universal" nature of the health care. So we Albertans are paying full price for our dental coverage and our eye glasses, and prescription medicines are only partially covered, among other things. There is secondary health coverage (such as Blue Cross) to fill in the gaps, but that costs more and many simply can't afford it. So it is hardly a perfect system and it can be fucked up by the idiots at the top of the food chain, just like anything else designed by politicians.

The other piece of the equation that no one ever wants to talk about up here is that the two-tier health care system still lives on in a universal system. If the rich and powerful don't want to wait in the queue with the masses, they are free to seek their treatments outside of the system -- rich folks in Canada routinely head to the States for quick medical procedures that might take months to get in Canada. Such is the privilege of having money.

Taking all that into consideration, I personally would rather step into a doctor's office knowing up front that I need not worry about the cost, than decide to just stay home and hope whatever is ailing me is non-fatal because I can't afford insurance. Your mileage may vary.

I'm sure the other non-Americans around here can provide plenty more insight as well...

Look at the abuse in our system, from people who abuse their bodys with everything from drugs to alcohol not to mention sports . Jim think what a simple skate board accident cost our system because no helmet or proper protection was used. Long term that person will need knee surgery etc as they age. Smoker should pay a higher price for heath than non, but in our system (canada) the abuse is so bad, it is the rich who get help and the poor who abuse it and the middle class pays for them all through higher taxes. Yes the poor should get health care and they do here and in the USA for free, MRI 's too if needed. But it should not be a 100 percent goverment controlled system. Talk to your Doctor and ask them what they think about the abuse. It would surprise you . My doctor tells me that over half the vist she does a day are not needed. The elderly visit the most often just for the need to talk not because they are sick.

Now the system in canada is being abuse by the Doctors too but mostly by the heath care workers. Nurses on down to hospital admin. They are all bleeding the system. If it is run like a business ,then the good worker or provider is rewarded and the bad is not in business for long. In Canada the good nurse gets paid the same as the bad etc. and because of the unions in the system the good nurse complains and because she or he does their hours of work become the worst shifts and the bad nurse gets the good shifts.

The last statement I am going to make is the Unions are also abusing the system too, by controlling the way staff can be scheduled and who can be fired etc. Our system in Canada is so close to collapsing from the abuse. And the only ones who will get hurt from that will be the middle class.

[bluffmanxx]

Nicci, I have to purchase my own health care...and trust me I pay much more than anyone who gets health insurance through an employer. I'm sure the plan offered by your husband's employer leaves something to be desired but where does it state that free or affordable health insurance is a right?? I went without any health insurance for large portions of my younger years and perhaps I was fortunate that I didn't get sick until I actually had coverage but I NEVER expected anyone else to provide coverage for me.

My first post in this thread did not focus on health care, but more on the general entitlement attitude that so many people have and the belief that it's someone else's job to take care of their basic needs. An increasing portion of the population seems to want to be dependent on the government for more and more...talk about loss of freedom!!! Once you sign your life over to the government you lose a great deal of control and tend to have fewer choices. In addition many people lose motivation when they don't have to actually achieve anything in order to survive.

Back to the health care issue and Ms. Clinton's plans. Let's be brutally honest here...she wants a national healthcare plan to A) buy votes like yours Nocci and B) increase the size of government and thus the amount of control government has over the lives of the slaves...er...citizens.

Give me a candidate that wants to decrease the role government plays in my life and reduce the size of the federal government and that candidate will probably get my vote.

[Niccivan]

well Hillary Clinton would never get my vote regardless of where she stands on national healthcare

And I understand what your original plan for this thread was. I don't think its anyones responsibility to take care of me except for that of my family - and when they can't do it - I want someone who can Of course I don't want the government having any more control over my life ) which is why my first post asked about what a national healthcare plan would entail (i.e. - cost being lower or higher - things of this nature) But sometimes desperate times call for desperate measures. Obviously, not everyone is as poor as me and have better employers who offer better insurance plans. So what is desperate to me is not necessarily desperate to others. I just find myself cursing alot of people when there are days I'm in so much pain I can't get out of bed (its not that often - but really bad when it does).

Ask me this question again after I have graduated and have a job

[Wildcat_Fan]

So many say that our tax money should not go to help others with health care that cannot afford it. But it costs us all in the end. Highest costs for care in the world and on the lower spectrum as to actual quality of care.

If we are not responsible for others safety and health, why do I pay for a Fire and Police Department? I have fire extinguishers, several guns. Shouldn't I have choice of taking care of my own home?

And while we may wait a bit longer for an appointment, if care were at a reasonable cost level people would go when they first sense problems rather that waiting until it is either too late or they have developed complications that shoot up the costs and lessen chances of recovery.

Why not give Drs. a bonus on how many patients they actually cure, rather than how many they can run through the examing room?

[Dale]

If we are not responsible for others safety and health, why do I pay for a Fire and Police Department? I have fire extinguishers, several guns. Shouldn't I have choice of taking care of my own home?

U make a good point here. In Canada our property tax pays for these services. The more ur house is worth the more u pay. But this has to do with safety . Health is a whole other issue .

[Night Nurse]

Now the system in canada is being abuse by the Doctors too but mostly by the heath care workers. Nurses on down to hospital admin. They are all bleeding the system. If it is run like a business ,then the good worker or provider is rewarded and the bad is not in business for long.

Ermmm psssttt how do they bleed the system... okay my hands are up for being naive

The NHS here has introduced a system that the bad staff do not get rewarded as they need to satisfy certain conditions to attain an increment in their wages (an increase)... it's not just how they operate in their role but how they maintain some form of education to further themselves.

[bluffmanxx]

So many say that our tax money should not go to help others with health care that cannot afford it. But it costs us all in the end. Highest costs for care in the world and on the lower spectrum as to actual quality of care.

If we are not responsible for others safety and health, why do I pay for a Fire and Police Department? I have fire extinguishers, several guns. Shouldn't I have choice of taking care of my own home?

And while we may wait a bit longer for an appointment, if care were at a reasonable cost level people would go when they first sense problems rather that waiting until it is either too late or they have developed complications that shoot up the costs and lessen chances of recovery.

Why not give Drs. a bonus on how many patients they actually cure, rather than how many they can run through the examing room?

1) cannot afford it is pretty vague. there are many who really need help, and many more who just sit back collect because they can.

2) if our care is so bad why do so many come to the U.S. seeking treatment if they are able???

3) the government fire and police are there to enforce uniform standards and provide a higher level of service than an individual could. that fire extinguisher won't work too well on a 3 alarm blaze and if everyone with a gun enforced their own "justice" chaos would prevail and society would not function too well.

4) much of the inflated cost is due to "lawsuit protection" in the form of unnecessary tests that only serve to cover the doctors asses more often than not. the cost of malpractice insurance has put many doctors out of business. of course this raises another question...if the docs are government employees do you have to sue the government if they screw up???

5) i can see many problems with giving doctors bonuses for "curing" patients. the biggest is that none of them would want to treat the patients who are less likely to recover. (you know, the ones who need the treatment the worst)

[mooch81]

1) cannot afford it is pretty vague. there are many who really need help, and many more who just sit back collect because they can.

2) if our care is so bad why do so many come to the U.S. seeking treatment if they are able???

3) the government fire and police are there to enforce uniform standards and provide a higher level of service than an individual could. that fire extinguisher won't work too well on a 3 alarm blaze and if everyone with a gun enforced their own "justice" chaos would prevail and society would not function too well.

4) much of the inflated cost is due to "lawsuit protection" in the form of unnecessary tests that only serve to cover the doctors asses more often than not. the cost of malpractice insurance has put many doctors out of business. of course this raises another question...if the docs are government employees do you have to sue the government if they screw up???

5) i can see many problems with giving doctors bonuses for "curing" patients. the biggest is that none of them would want to treat the patients who are less likely to recover. (you know, the ones who need the treatment the worst)

Aww damnit, you said it all before I could. There might be something I could add to your points, but I don't know what it is at 7am .. will check back later in the day. Good answers bluff.

[ctmason-SK]

Speaking from a middle class perspective i can tell you that my main concern is not quality of care but cost.

I have a family of four and we have a nice plan thru the state where all of our medical needs are fully covered. This plan is a godsend because the insurance thru my wifes employer was borderline extortion.

The problem of course is that it eliminates incentives to get ahead...if you increase your income by a certian amount...you lose the insurance...and in my situation with 2 young children that is an option i find untenable at the moment...the care is vital.

Its a difficult subject...and normally i am not one to look to the nanny state for solutions...but this progressive policy is one where the pros outweigh the cons in my view.