Is it time for national health care for all?

Posted on May 23rd 2007 7:30PM by Brian White

Although America is the richest nation on the planet, we cannot give health care away to all citizens like other countries (mostly in Europe). Why is this? Because we're a capitalist republic, not a democratic socialist state.

Will that change, and should it? Should citizens in the U.S. have access to leading health care for free and at any time instead of over 40 million not even having any type of health insurance?

Who will pay for the subsidization of health care for all? Those are all tough questions, and some of the current U.S. Presidential hopefuls have ideas. One thing seems clear: even if you are an ardent Republican who believes in the individualism of people's personal responsibility, is it not the right thing to do in guaranteeing health care to every citizen in the U.S.?

What do you think? If you're uninsured, I'd like to hear from you. Small employers, please speak up.

Source

9 Comment

Tags: health care, HealthCare, socialism, universal health care, UniversalHealthCare

At Whole Foods Thinner Employees Get Fatter Discounts (52 days ago - 7 Comments)

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

JAMES CRANFORD 5-24-2007 @ 1:36PM

i am self employed with no insurance. i will probably rue the day when something happens in my life. however, i do not feel the government should come in to 'rescue' me. i am obviously making a choice not to buy insurance, and thus am taking the risk. i know there are those that cannot afford insurance at all, but is it really the governments job to get into our personal business at the same time?
take the liberals shouting that the government should stay out of our bedrooms, in supporting gay rights. however, should this not apply to everyone? if i choose to smoke, or drive my car without a seatbelt, that is my risk, why should the government be involved in that?
the one thing the government should do, is row back regulations, do some reform on lawsuits, and allow for true competition in the field of healthcare. that will bring costs down and allow the majority of us to get the care we need for minor injuries and illnesses instead of relying on the government or insurance. health insurance should be more like car insurance. first $500, the patient pays. then the coverage starts. and its for each incident, not just the beginning of the year. you go in for the flu, you pay. a few months later, you get a broken leg, you pay the first 500 bucks. a few months later, you get some illness that puts you in the hospital. you pay the first $500. and so on. i think that would be more helpful than some government mandated socialist program.

ESK 5-24-2007 @ 9:33AM

I believe there is a reason Silvio Berlusconi went to Cleveland for heart surgery.

Socialist health care, while a pretty theory, stifles innovation, creates a performance disincentive and burdens the consumer.

Look no further than the sad state of the public (read: socialist) school system to.

While not an "ardent republican" i do believe an individual is responsible for themselves and whomever else they choose, so no, providing birth to death health care for everyone to me, is not the "right thing to do."

(rob) 5-24-2007 @ 1:26PM

the main issue with the concept of socialized medicine in a capitalist society is frankly going to be the doctors.

if a doctor that is used to making six figures a year is suddenly a government employee and is told that he is going to make 80k per year, how many are going to keep doing their jobs? and how many people are going to go medical school for all those years, all in the hopes that they'll be able to get a job as a doctor not even making enough to pay off their student loans.

when prices for contract programmers dropped in late 1999, suddenly there was a drastic shortage of people going to school to study computers, and i think we're going to see the same thing here, but on a much more critical level.

socialized medicine is great in theory, but the practical aspects of it are going to be a nightmare.

EM 5-24-2007 @ 1:35PM

There's a difference between "socialized" medicine and a national health care system. In a socialized system (Finland, Sweden), doctors are direct government employees. That's where you get the issues of low salary. In a single-payer national health care system (France, Germany, Australia), doctors can be government employees, or they can choose to go into private practice, or they can work for a private hospital or university - just like in the US. Patients can get private insurance or pay their doctors in cash - just like in the US. The only difference is that the government acts as an insurance company that covers all citizens. By every objective measure, countries that have single-payer systems have better healthcare than the US.

Arguing against national health care by focusing on the flaws of "socialized medicine" is like arguing against buying an import car because you knew a guy with a 1985 Yugo who had nothing but problems with it. It's picking the worst possible example of a world of examples.

ESK 5-24-2007 @ 3:04PM

an interesting thought, if we allow the government to pay for all medical procedures through a collectivist health care plan, doesn't that then entitle the government more invasive knowledge of individual health care consumption. Can the "privacy issue" ever really be used again in terms of health care issues (highest profile being abortion).

EM 5-24-2007 @ 3:23PM

health insurance should be more like car insurance.

The problem with is that we want people going to the doctor for minor health issues, because we want them to nip those issues in the bud before they become major. We don't want people saying, "I don't want to get this mole removed because my premiums will go up if I do," because then six months down the line some of those people will be going in anyway for chemotherapy for a malignant melanoma that could have been easily surgically removed had they just gone in the first day they noticed it.

if i choose to smoke, or drive my car without a seatbelt, that is my risk, why should the government be involved in that?

Because if you get really sick or injured, you go to an emergency room. if you die in that emergency room and are unable to pay your bill, guess who does? The taxpayers. If you survive but you rack up thousands of dollars of fees that you can't pay, guess who pays for you? The taxpayers.

The government already subsidizes emergency rooms because if they didn't, we wouldn't have emergency rooms. ERs are not profitable - they're a huge financial drain on any hospital or HMO that runs them and without government payoffs they wouldn't exist.

do some reform on lawsuits

Malpractice only accounts for 0.5%-2% of health care costs in the US. The Congressional Budget Office in 2004 and the Government Accountability office in 2003 both found that tort reform would not have any significant effect on health care costs.

The health care system in the US is fundamentally broken. It needs an overhaul. Everything else is just putting lipstick on a pig.

pam 5-27-2007 @ 1:17AM

my husband is uninsured self employed and i am a stay at home mom of three, our children are on medicaid, so why cant they come up with a plan for adult medicaid so i can have my teeth fixed for two thousand dollars? how about a pay as you go kind of thing, surely we can come up with some thing that would work. my mom died because she was too young for medicaid and was denied three times for ssi and she died because she couldnt afford her blood pressure and high cholesterol medicines,she cared for three grandchildren, while my sisters worked. but still it wasnt enough to buy medicine she needed. if shed had her medicine wed still have a great woman, mom, grandma,aunt,sister and most importantly wife with us today and my kids and neices would still have a grandma,the only grandma in all their lives. and just because someone cant pay health care doesnt mean they arent caring for themselves. they cant afford to with all the other things. also it doesnt mean they are lazy with work. some maybe but others no. it should be case by case view.

Gavin 5-30-2007 @ 7:05PM

I stumbled across this post by accident and could not keep my blood from boiling while reading it. First, I can't stand when people blame someone's misfortune on the person. Their are people who are self destructive and make bad choices...I completely agree. However, there are many people who work extremely hard to better their plight in this country on their own with parents who have no money and never had any help who truly can't afford to pay $2-$300 a month for insurance that has a $500 deductable which then switches to 80%/20% per person in their family. I believe the reason we cannot implement a national health care plan is purely because of greed in the medical industry. You cannot go to a doctor and find out your bill before you leave because they will always bill to maximum they can get. The markup on medical testing is absurd and the price for routine procedures is out of hand. The billing is comparable to the auto sale industry which is just outright creepy. The government NEEDS to step in and regulate pricing on all levels. This includes the manufacturing and selling of equipment and medicines, the use of this equipment, the prescribing of medicines, and the procedures used by medical workers. Not every aspect of medicine is as esoteric as doctors want us to believe. We are an intelligent society and many of us have a good idea of what is wrong with them when they see the doctor...we just need their permission to test us. Those of you who have no insurance and disagree with national health insurance, by all means, you'll have every right to choose not to participate in a national health care plan. However, there are many more who's lives would improve on many levels should this happen. People who some obviously can't relate to or are too proud to admit that they'd need it. Also, the person who elluded to the privacy factor, I promise you, my dissatisfaction of the government knowing I have a hemorrhoid pales in comparison to the explanations many in the medical industry would have to give for their mark-ups billing.