You know, we are all made to pay taxes yearly. Our paychecks are taxed, we take that money and go to the grocery and are taxed, we get gas and our already taxed money gets taxed again. Why can't our tax money pay for health insurance? If a percentage of our tax money went into a health insurance policy all people would have access to healthcare. As an incentive, people who do not use their fund for doctor's visits and hospital costs could receive a larger refund. Many people take advantage of the medicaid system...Not everyone, but many people do. If the policy was not free, but as a part of their taxed money...They might not take advantage of the system knowing that they would get THEIR money back at the end of the year. Any thoughts? No spam pleases...The governors are in South Carolina trying to figure healthcare out...Maybe we, the people, should be of the same mind.

As an incentive, people who do not use their fund for doctor's visits and hospital costs could receive a larger refund.

Two problems I see with this part:
1.) Offering cash-back incentives, kind of defeats the whole concept of insurance. Those who don't use it are paying for those who do. That's how it survives.
2.) Many people would skip doctors visits (and neglect to take their kids) to get the incentive.

What you've described - sans the incentive part which Raven has explained well won't work - is just a socialistic system that's being used in many countries. Just ask our British friends (ones over 30) just how well such a thing works - they'll be quick to tell you it's horrible.

And it only stands to reason. Anytime you put the government in the middle of any process of any kind, there's going to be a huge amount of bureaucratic waste, graft and corruption. For a good example of the latter, just look at the abused Medicare system we already have. Hospitals and doctors charging for visits and treatments that never took place. And that's probably only the tip of the iceberg of what's actually happened.

our current system is f'ed up that even run by the governemt healthcare would be improved the current system favor insurance companies and drug companies

What you've described - sans the incentive part which Raven has explained well won't work - is just a socialistic system that's being used in many countries. Just ask our British friends (ones over 30) just how well such a thing works - they'll be quick to tell you it's horrible.

'They' as in all? Quite an unscientific claim. Many will tell you how wonderful it is. In any case, any system, however it is funded, will only be as good as its constituent parts. That's why free market healthcare is often so dreadful.

Can anyone tell me (with evidence) what i saw in SICKO is utterly and fully wrong ? ... You know, just in case anyone thinks allowing a baby to die, just because her mom didn't have the right health insurance ?..."O i'm sorry, its the free market system" ....

Just checking...

Because you are American and your government requires a truely massive Military and black ops budget.

Thank (the guy upstairs) for me that Australia has a two party healthcare system.

'They' as in all? Quite an unscientific claim. Many will tell you how wonderful it is. In any case, any system, however it is funded, will only be as good as its constituent parts. That's why free market healthcare is often so dreadful.

I didn't mean to imply "all." Instead I should have said something like "many." And I hope you noted that I DID restrict it to those over 30 since they would have had more experience with the system than the younger set.

I'd do it differently were it in my power. But it's better than pay-per-view style healthcare.

What you've described - sans the incentive part which Raven has explained well won't work - is just a socialistic system that's being used in many countries. Just ask our British friends (ones over 30) just how well such a thing works - they'll be quick to tell you it's horrible.

And it only stands to reason. Anytime you put the government in the middle of any process of any kind, there's going to be a huge amount of bureaucratic waste, graft and corruption. For a good example of the latter, just look at the abused Medicare system we already have. Hospitals and doctors charging for visits and treatments that never took place. And that's probably only the tip of the iceberg of what's actually happened.

In Britain the health care system works fairly well, (apart from having to wait months for operations) we are taxed for our health care and some people do not have to pay for medications, if you are on low income or on benefits or working tax credit then you are entitled to free medications, but some people have to pay,

In Britain the health care system works fairly well, (apart from having to wait months for operations) we are taxed for our health care and some people do not have to pay for medications, if you are on low income or on benefits or working tax credit then you are entitled to free medications, but some people have to pay,

It's primarily that long wait that I was thinking of. About a year ago, it was discovered that I needed one. It was scheduled and finished the same week.

Why can't our tax money pay for health insurance?
Because it's already being used for other stuff, and the government is already incurring a ruinous debt as is. The last thing we need is to take on another social program. Adding drug benefits to the already over extended Medicare system was bad enough! No mas!!!!!

We could just cut into the military and war budget to finance it, along with tons of other things, like plastic surgery for everyone who needs it.

What you've described - sans the incentive part which Raven has explained well won't work - is just a socialistic system that's being used in many countries. Just ask our British friends (ones over 30) just how well such a thing works - they'll be quick to tell you it's horrible.

I don't get the stigma associated with spending tax money on social problems when we waste money in so many other ways.

I don't get the stigma associated with spending tax money on social problems when we waste money in so many other ways.

Really? So you think that wasting money and resources in yet another way is fine?????? That seems like rather strange reasoning to me.

I don't think it IS a waste. What I was saying though is it is odd that people are so actively opposed to comparatively small spending for something useful when we waste money on such a grand scale.

This type of socialism seems to be the norm for the rest of the developed world.

I don't think it IS a waste. What I was saying though is it is odd that people are so actively opposed to comparatively small spending for something useful when we waste money on such a grand scale.

Comparitively small? Are you insane? The health care industry equals 1/5 of the entire economy. We already spend more on "entitlements" than anything else in the budget, including the military.

What you've described - sans the incentive part which Raven has explained well won't work - is just a socialistic system that's being used in many countries. Just ask our British friends (ones over 30) just how well such a thing works - they'll be quick to tell you it's horrible.

And it only stands to reason. Anytime you put the government in the middle of any process of any kind, there's going to be a huge amount of bureaucratic waste, graft and corruption. For a good example of the latter, just look at the abused Medicare system we already have. Hospitals and doctors charging for visits and treatments that never took place. And that's probably only the tip of the iceberg of what's actually happened.

Agreed. Socialized health care has been teetering around as our next step in the good ol' (and verrrryyyy old) FDR welfare program that brought us out of the Great Depression. To establish such a health care program would mean that capitalism in the health care industry is a complete failure, and it is necessary for the government to intervene. We DO NOT need to give up more freedom to an already huge political demigod of a government.

Some say Drs. bill excessively for their services. Most of the time, the complainants are the health insurers. On the flip side, Drs. argue that their bills are not paid entirely by the insurer, and they don't recover the customary remaining 20% even 50% of the time, which requires the Drs. to increase their hourly or service fee to reach a median income for their specialty.

Personally, I think the best system would be to completely remove health insurance for a period of 1-2 years (including Medicaid/Medicare), and then determine exactly what an honest working American can pay for a CT scan, or MRI, or other service. Charging $2500 for an MRI and read to me is astronomical. As is $300 for a wheelchair ride to the car after an outpatient procedure.

If we are truly a class-based economic society (working class, lower class, middle, and so on), statistics would indicate that Drs. would profit most by tailoring their services to the middle-class income rate. The government can then subsidize, as opposed to socialize, the lower and working classes to make up the difference, which could be funded by appropriations of present tax revenues. Alternatively, the battle between Dr. and Insurer could then balance itself out in the actual marketplace, as opposed to the present state of the two party "bargain."

Point is, if insurance was out of the picture, even for just a little while, the price of "gas" would come down.

Brilliant. Completely subdue the scientific care of the fragile human body to spurious market forces. After all, the invisible hand has worked so well for toys (http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/05/news/companies/mattel_recall/?postversion=2007090514), tires (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/IndustryInfo/wireStory?id=3315045), food (http://www.fda.gov/opacom/7alerts.html), and pensions (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20592260/site/newsweek/). That'll show them commies, eh?

It's primarily that long wait that I was thinking of. About a year ago, it was discovered that I needed one. It was scheduled and finished the same week.

yeah a few years ago i need an urgent operation, and i had to wait 8mths for a spot to becomme avaliable! The waiting times for appointments is rediculous, i have known people to wait up to 3 yrs for a hip replacement.

Because it's already being used for other stuff, and the government is already incurring a ruinous debt as is. The last thing we need is to take on another social program. Adding drug benefits to the already over extended Medicare system was bad enough! No mas!!!!!


This arguement assumes that we are not paying health care costs today..it is a false argument. We are paying health care costs today and we have the most expensive health care system in the WORLD and the quality of our health is declining just as rapidly as health care costs are rising.
Today the insured and the government pay the costs for those that are not insured. Under a universal coverage system, all folks pay. And that seems fair to me. By the grace of God, I have always had healthcare insurance. But I know many who have not. Who go without medicine until they need a hospital visit. A simple condition that could be managed with medication ends up not being well managed and expensive treatment. Who do you think pays for the hospititalization of non insureds...government and the insured.
We also need to take a look at the healthcare industry...is there a better way of delivering services? Indeed there is. Our healthcare industry is riddled with monopolies. We need to break up some of those very powerful monopolies. Is our way of educating MDs the best, most efficient? I think not. Take a look at how many foriegn doctors are practicing in the United States...their education took a lot less time than our MDs and they are just as good if not better.

As this debate heats up there will be lots of scare tactics sponsored by the healtcare industry. Be prepared! And question why so much money is being spent to scare you.

To establish such a health care program would mean that capitalism in the health care industry is a complete failure, and it is necessary for the government to intervene.

Point is, if insurance was out of the picture, even for just a little while, the price of "gas" would come down.

You are correct, capitalism is a failure with respect to healthcare because if it were not I could readily buy my medications from the lowest cost provider (anywhere outside the United States). The healthcare industry at all levels in the United States has very successfully lobbied for and received legislation that limits and restricts their markets... legislation protects their markets from competition. Pharmaceutical companies for example spend their research dollars not on new drugs, but on extending existing patents. Eliminating insurance companies would do nothing as long as the industry players are permitted to act as monopolies...by law. What we need is to make healthcare markets competitive through capitalism. What we need is to drop arbitrary barriers to entry into markets and professions...then free markets can work. Virtually any industrialized and developing country can train medical professionals, including MDs, more effectively and efficiently than we can in the United States. But we also need to make sure that every one pays their fair share as well.

This arguement assumes that we are not paying health care costs today..it is a false argument. We are paying health care costs today and we have the most expensive health care system in the WORLD and the quality of our health is declining just as rapidly as health care costs are rising.
No, it's not. The government is broke. It can not afford to take on a huge new expense like healthcare.

Wisconsin is trying to pass a univeral healthcare package for their state right now. It will cost more way more than the entire budget in Wisconsin does now and require a monumental increase in taxes.
Democrats who run the Wisconsin Senate have dropped the Washington pretense of incremental health-care reform and moved directly to passing a plan to insure every resident under the age of 65 in the state. And, wow, is "free" health care expensive. The plan would cost an estimated $15.2 billion, or $3 billion more than the state currently collects in all income, sales and corporate income taxes. It represents an average of $510 a month in higher taxes for every Wisconsin worker.

Employees and businesses would pay for the plan by sharing the cost of a new 14.5% employment tax on wages. Wisconsin businesses would have to compete with out-of-state businesses and foreign rivals while shouldering a 29.8% combined federal-state payroll tax, nearly double the 15.3% payroll tax paid by non-Wisconsin firms for Social Security and Medicare combined.

This employment tax is on top of the $1 billion grab bag of other levies that Democratic Governor Jim Doyle proposed and the tax-happy Senate has also approved, including a $1.25 a pack increase in the cigarette tax, a 10% hike in the corporate tax, and new fees on cars, trucks, hospitals, real estate transactions, oil companies and dry cleaners. In all, the tax burden in the Badger State could rise to 20% of family income, which is slightly more than the average federal tax burden. "At least federal taxes pay for an Army and Navy," quips R.J. Pirlot of the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce business lobby. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010374

I hope this package passes there so the rest of the country can see what a disaster it will be. People and companies will flee Wisconson as fast as they can to avoid paying those taxes. "Free" healthcare is the most expensive kind.

This document is also available as a printable .pdf file.
Health Insurance Cost
Facts on the Cost of Health Care

Introduction
By several measures, health care spending continues to rise at the fastest rate in our history.
In 2005 (the latest year data are available), total national health expenditures rose 6.9 percent -- two times the rate of inflation (1). Total spending was $2 TRILLION in 2005, or $6,700 per person (1). Total health care spending represented 16 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).
U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4 TRILLION in 2015, or 20 percent of GDP (2).
In 2006, employer health insurance premiums increased by 7.7 percent – two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $11,500. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,200 (3).
Experts agree that our health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care, waste and fraud. These problems significantly increase the cost of medical care and health insurance for employers and workers and affect the security of families.
The National Coalition
on Health Care
1200 G Street, NW,
Suite 750
Washington, DC 20005
Let me try to be more clear MAD, nothing is for free including health care. We have a healthcare system today, and it is extremely expensive and getting more so each and every day. In our system, providers are obligated to treat life threatening conditions in an emergency room environment. And life threatening conditions tend to be expensive to treat. And if one has a medical condition that is not treated…say hypertension, it will likely lead to a life threatening event. Who pays for that cost when the indigent goes to the hospital? The hospitals pay for that cost, and how do the hospitals recover that cost…let me think, they add the cost of indigent care to the bill that is paid by those who can afford to pay for the care…those with insurance. So everyone today is getting healthcare in some form, but it is not quality care. It is expensive care and you and I are paying for it now…you just don’t know it. The people who do not have insurance are not paying for it.
Currently employees and employers are paying about sixteen percent of income on health care. That is absurd and the cost is growing at multiples of inflation. If left unchecked it will soon be at 25 percent of your income. The answer is two fold: break up the monopolies in health care and let old supply and demand take the driver seat. And two; make everyone pay their fair share.
Personally, you should be mad. We all should be mad. But we need to make sure we are mad about the right things…this “universal healthcare’’ scare is just a distraction intended to scare people and preserve the monopolies. Guess what, who is paying the bill to day for those without health care…you and I!

Let me try to be more clear MAD, nothing is for free including health care. The answer is two fold: break up the monopolies in health care and let old supply and demand take the driver seat.
I'm all for market reforms, I'm totally opposed to government sponsored "univeral healthcare". I personally just switched over to a high deductable insurance ($5000) and a health savings account. The amount I save in premiums will more than make up for the deductable within one year.

I'm all for market reforms, I'm totally opposed to government sponsored "univeral healthcare". I personally just switched over to a high deductable insurance ($5000) and a health savings account. The amount I save in premiums will more than make up for the deductable within one year.

Are you interested in having the best healthcare system possible, or merely the most profitable?

Are you interested in having the best healthcare system possible, or merely the most profitable?
The best, baby. And there's no way a government run one is the best. The government sucks. Everything it does sucks. And you think they're the ones to provide the best healthcare? What are you smoking?

The best, baby. And there's no way a government run one is the best. The government sucks. Everything it does sucks. And you think they're the ones to provide the best healthcare? What are you smoking?

So if it were proven that state-run healthcare is better than privately-run healthcare, you would begin advocating it?

Let me tell you about our quality healthcare system. Earlier this year, I had a pulmonary thrombosis…a blood clot in the lung and was taken to a trauma center in a major metropolitan area. This hospital also serves as a training hospital for medical students. I had classic symptoms of pulmonary thrombosis. I know this because thirty years ago I was trained as a hospital corpsman in the Navy. As I laid gasping for air, I could tell my doctors were totally clueless as to the pulmonary thrombosis. It took them 36 hours to figure it out. And it was a doctor who was trained in India who, after he came on the case, figured it out rather quickly and he initiated treatment. He did not need legions of specialists and diagnostics to tell him the problem. I could have died in the hospital waiting for treatment…and there for a while I seriously thought I would have to call 911 because I was not being treated….36 hours for a correct diagnosis and treatment of a life threatening event. Yea, real quality there! And I have first class health insurance.

Brilliant. Completely subdue the scientific care of the fragile human body to spurious market forces. After all, the invisible hand has worked so well for toys (http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/05/news/companies/mattel_recall/?postversion=2007090514), tires (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/IndustryInfo/wireStory?id=3315045), food (http://www.fda.gov/opacom/7alerts.html), and pensions (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20592260/site/newsweek/). That'll show them commies, eh?

Well, as it is, there are generally two market forces influencing the cost of US healthcare: Drs. & Insurance. Of course you have the Medicaid/Medicare people (noting that many Drs. do not take such recipients) and those w/ enough $$ to pay w/o insurance.

As for toys, tires, food, etc., these are all commodities, and the "spurious" market forces which promote recalls is actually a positive thing for our consumers. Drs. provide services, which are not subject to recalls. Besides, capitalism would dictate that the better the Dr., the more he could foreseeably charge.

Learned Hand, I might add that there are more than two; hospitals, pharma companies, medical device companies, and of course all of the ancillary services. In a free market, with perfect information, good doctors could drive better prices. But we do not have free markets and we do not have perfect information...we don't even track it because the industry has successuly fought it. In Britian they have a system that rewards good performance by MDs....not a bad system.

Learned Hand, I might add that there are more than two; hospitals, pharma companies, medical device companies, and of course all of the ancillary services. In a free market, with perfect information, good doctors could drive better prices. But we do not have free markets and we do not have perfect information...we don't even track it because the industry has successuly fought it. In Britian they have a system that rewards good performance by MDs....not a bad system.

Well, I kinda grouped hospitals, medicines, nurses, physicians, and all related services under Drs. Perhaps I should have just said "medical providers." Nevertheless, it's generally a two-way bargain that consumers generally have no control over. How often has anyone tried to negotiate a fee for open heart surgery? If the medical provider says no, do you have time to seek out another physician? Do we have the tools available to determine the best medical provider for the price? No. If we have insurance, which tries to bring down the cost of that $300 wheelchair ride from our bed to the door, we the consumer generally don't care. Thus, the free market system does not interact sufficiently enough to make healthcare more reasonably affordable. If Uncle Sam gets involved, we give up way too many freedoms. What can be more personal and American than seeking your own doctor, second opinion, and decision from whom you feel the greatest trust and assurance from? If more free market interactions occur, insurance premiums would (hopefully) drop, and you wouldn't have to pay up the whazoo for the risk insured.

The US system is broken beyond repair. It's a giant trough. All the idolatry of the free market in the world isn't going to change that.

Pricing is dificult for this industry especially if you are in a critical condition. It is hard to put out a competitve bid for services when you could be dead in a few minutes or hours without immediate medical care. Additionally, providers do not publish rates for goods and services. Those rates are only known to the provider and the insurance companies. In my recent hospitalization, the gross price for a little less than a week of care was 53k for the hospital only, the net rate negotatited by insurance provider was 30k...big difference. In many cases patients are just happy to have an MD accept them as a patient...again the supply demand curve is tilted in favor of the suppliers of healthcare services and has been for half a century. And when you get hospitalized, you get bills for everbody and everybodys brother, sister, cousin and uncles because of the way the industry is structured. Under the current system the patieint is just a slab of meat...no need to consult or inform...just bill.

Hear is an article summarizing a study of healthcare costs from the John Hopkins School of Health. We are paying more than twice what our eurpoean brothers are paying for healthcare. And our european brothers are covering everyone one in their society and getting similar results. How do you explain it....can you say goverment created monopolies?

July 12, 2005

U.S. Still Spends More on Health Care than Any Other Country

Researchers Rule out Supply Constraints and Litigation as Cause


Gerard Anderson, PhD
The United States continues to spend significantly more on health care than any country in the world. In 2002, Americans spent 53 percent per capita more than the next highest country, Switzerland, and 140 percent above the median industrialized country, according to new research from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The study authors analyzed whether two possible reasons—supply constraints and malpractice litigation—could explain the difference in health care costs. They found that neither factor accounted for a large portion of the U.S. spending differential. The study is featured in the July/August 2005 issue of the journal Health Affairs.

“It is commonly believed that waiting lists in other countries and malpractice litigation in the United States are major reasons why the United States spends so much more on health care than other countries. We found that they only explain a small part of the difference,” said Gerard Anderson, PhD, lead author of the study and a professor in the Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Department of Health Policy and Management.

The study authors reviewed health care spending data on 30 countries from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) for the year 2002. U.S. citizens spent $5,267 per capita on health care. The country with the next highest per capita expenditure, Switzerland, spent $3,446 per capita. The median OECD country spent $2,193 per capita.

For more information: "It's the Prices Stupid" --Q & A with Gerard Anderson
One of the commonly cited reasons why U.S. citizens spend more on health care than other countries is that these other countries have waiting lists, especially for elective surgery.The procedures with waiting lists in these other countries, however, represent only 3 percent of spending and therefore cannot explain much of the cost differential.

Another perceived cause of higher health care costs in the United States is that malpractice suits increase the prices charged by doctors and cause them to practice defensive medicine, which occurs when doctors order extra tests or procedures to reduce their risk of being sued. The researchers compared the number of malpractice claims and awards in the United States, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom and found that while U.S. citizens sue more often, the actual settlements from all four countries were comparable.

According to the study authors, defensive medicine probably contributes more to higher health spending than malpractice premiums, but determining which tests and second opinions should be defined as defensive medicine is less clear. The highest estimate for costs of defensive medicine in the United States is only 9 percent and many experts believe this number is too high.

“We can’t blame the United States’ higher health care costs on limiting procedures in other countries or the elevated number of law suits filed in the United States,” said Peter S. Hussey, PhD, co-author of the study and a recent graduate of the Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Department of Health Policy and Management.

“As in previous years, it comes back to the fact that we are paying much higher prices for health care goods and services in the United States. Paying more is okay if our outcomes were better than other countries. But we are paying more for comparable outcomes,” said Anderson, who is also the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Hospital Finance and Management.

In 2004, Anderson and Hussey also co-authored, along with Uwe E. Reinhardt, PhD, of Princeton University, a similar comparison for Heath Affairs. It was the most-viewed study in the journal’s end-of-year review.

“Health Spending in the United States and the Rest of the Industrialized World” was supported by a grant from the Commonwealth Fund.

Additional authors of the study were Bianca K. Frogner and Hugh R. Waters.

Public Affairs media contacts for the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health: Kenna Lowe or Tim Parsons at 410-955-6878 or paffairs@jhsph.edu.

I already pay for Medicare that I'm not allowed to use until 65..

- N

So assuming we could implement a healthcare system (universal healthcare) similar to other industrialized countries with similar outcomes, we would be paying 5 percent of income on health care versus 16 percent. And Mad, I have one more suprise for you, you already have a healthcare system managed by the government. The difference is that not all of the payments to providers come directly from the government. Imagine what we could do if we could do it better? So Mad, what do you think?

I already pay for Medicare that I'm not allowed to use until 65..

- N
That's because, like all government programs, it's a pyrimid scheme. You need lots of people paying and just a few collecting for the whole thing to work.
And Mad, I have one more suprise for you, you already have a healthcare system managed by the government. The difference is that not all of the payments to providers come directly from the government. Imagine what we could do if we could do it better? So Mad, what do you think?I don't trust the government enough to put both my livelyhood and my health in it's (in)capable hands.

Any of you that have money taken out of your checks at work (otherwise it's expensive as fizuck) for health care, are you upset that you do so?

- N

Personally, I think if i could pay a third of what i pay today for healthcare an have everyone covered and get similar results, it is a no brainer to me.

Why can't our tax money pay for health insurance?

It can. It does in many countries.

It's just that in the USA the medical sector is ... fat.

Doctors in the USA make about 4 times more than those in Finland.

They charge easily 1500$ for an epidural in the USA, while in Finland the philosophy is that the medical staff is there anyway and hence the only extra cost to the treatment are the supplies, of which the costs are actually negligent (i asked about it last time I was in a Finnish hospital).

You will never get rich as a doctor in a Finnish public hospital. You will have a normal salary (just above average joe). It does do wonders for the costs of health care. Similar to the limiting of unnecessary procedures and diagnostics that are usually done in the USA to gain income.

In the end you end up paying less than you pay now in the USA (as a nation) and get healthcare for all. For free.

Now, what are the problems with public healthcare?

There are often waiting lists. Especially for non-urgent treatments.
Rich people do not get the instant special treatment they are used to in their lives.
Your doctor may not drive the latest Mercedes convertible.
You end up paying less. Which is bad for the consumer economy.

I don't know. Been in both systems. I prefer the public health care. I guess if you have the cash it might feel nicer that you can have excessive healthcare. Public health care is more equal. And that is what we are supposed to cherish in a democratic society. allegedly.

You will never get rich as a doctor in a Finnish public hospital. You will have a normal salary (just above average joe).

It used to be that way here too.
A very long time ago.
Back when people became doctors because they were passionate about it and cared about the welfare of others.
We are much better off now, though... We have... ummm... More expensive equipment!

Now, what are the problems with public healthcare?
[LIST]
There are often waiting lists. Especially for non-urgent treatments.
Rich people do not get the instant special treatment they are used to in their lives.
I think the second point isnt nessesarily true. Because of waiting lists, the private sector in the UK has made big money off rich people who still want instant special treatment. And you dont need an insurance policy.

I think the second point isnt nessesarily true. Because of waiting lists, the private sector in the UK has made big money off rich people who still want instant special treatment. And you dont need an insurance policy.

Of course you are perfectly right. The same is true in Finland, where there is a private sector as well.

Often though the treatments in the private sector are partially covered by the public health sector and you will get some of it back. Obviously you will never get the full amount back unless it is cheaper as in the public sector. Which never happens of course.

Mad, you don't like government run programs because of the red tape. Get this, in the United States with our so called private healthcare system we pay six times more for healthcare administrative expenses than any country providing socialized medicine in the entire world.

What are you basing this "six times more" on?

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/72229.php

This article appeared today in the Medical News Today.

Here is another article from the New England Journal of Medicine published in 2003 referencing data from the 1990's comparing administrative healthcare costs in the United States and Canada. It does not include costs of insurance company marketing or administration as Canada has none or virtually none.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/349/8/768
WAKE UP AMERICA!!!

One other point, everyone seems to think our military folks get the best medical treatment while on duty. Military men, women and their families receive a socialized government run healthcare system. I don't hear them screaming or complaining about government run healthcare.

Wasnt there a scandal some time ago?

I think that was with the Army and I belive it was over the conditions of the quarters folks receiving ongoing care stayed in, not on the quality of care.

Hillarycare is an interesting step forward in healthcare for the United States. I mandates insurance coverage which is good. It mandates some operational improvements. But does really not go to the real quick of the mater establishing a healthcare delivery system that is efficient (competitive) and yeilding quality care. It is probably a baby step, a half step in order to satisfy the industry.