Why We Can't Afford Government Run Health Care In America?

the answer is big $ for insurance controls politics.

Actually most Brits like their healthcare system.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/aug/14/ministers-doctors-defend-uk-nhs

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6018227/Barack-Obama-health-plan-British-experts-defend-NHS-against-US-Right-wing-attacks.html

They also criticize the Republicans efforts to deny all Americans access to affordable healthcare with lies about the British system. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2009/08/12/10442596-ap.html

The industrialized countries, all of them except the United States, have an approval rate from their citizens upwards of 90%, good to very good concerning their health care systems.

There are variations, and the one mostly like for America is that of Switzerland (could be Sweden?).

There is a lot of misinformation out there, which is unfortunate.

The big picture is that America ranks 37th in the world in health care; 47th in life expectancy; 41st in infant mortality.  We pay twice as much per person and are sicker and die sooner.

Changes, anyone?

ArmyBrat75 and wwww?, beware. Another one like rocmike!

Marinerecondad,

I like the way you framed the question/answer/point of view. At last a viable opinion.

I think (perhaps a little pessimistically) everything is already political in nature and operation. My question is "will the program save lives"? Will the program remove choice? Will the program bankrupt us?

I'm a little simple minded in my view, I believe a viable solution is to make the health care providers/insurance companies adhere to their contractual obligations. If they fail to provide health care, make them give the money back to the people who paid for the service and did not receive it.

This will limit government involvement and keep the free market operations in place and the high standard of innovative health care chugging. But there is politics, special interests and they (who ever "they" are) will not abide their cash flows being interrupted. 

Example:USA

A health care provider/insurance company/hedge fund bought 15 hospitals in a given area. They then shut down 13 of the hospitals citing that by doing so better care, better employees and lower costs would ensue.

In fact, what they did was deprive people of health care, fire employees and eliminate costs. In addition, they cheated medicare out of billions of dollars by charging the government for care they did not provide. They were fined over a billion dollars for their actions or in actions.

When President Nixon was told about Mr. Kaiser's plan to provide health care, Mr. Nixon said the only way for Mr. Kaiser to make any money was "not to provide" health care. This is one of the many things on the Nixon tapes. "They" know this and accept the principal of not providing health care for profit.

We need government regulation, not necessarily government run health care.

the bruce

I can only add to this question that the only way government run health care is going to work is if the government reimburses doctors and hospitals properly.  Very often the government pays doctors and hospitals so poorly that doctors and hospitals don't like to treat patients who are on government run healthcare because of such poor reimbursements and also that it takes the government too long to pay.  It could take as much as six months before a doctor or hospital receives reimbursement from government run healthcare and that is because the system is so huge it is bound to be delayed in the payment system.  And, when the government finally does pay it is peanuts.  Even so, that being said no doctor or hospital should take their frustrations out on people who already have government healthcare as they so often do.  I know.  I have been a vicitm of government run healthcare and I am always chosen last even if I were first on line.  I rest my case.

www,

It is a blurred or a fine line and semantics is interesting if not very practical, however, I find the distinction between the administration of health care and the payment for the administration of health care impacts the patient just the same.

If you can't pay the doctor for his administration of health care then you don't get the service. Correspondingly, if you can't pay the insurance company which pays the doctor which provides the health service then the end is the same, you don't get the service.

Just more middle men to pay off and to  separate you from the service your trying to get. In short what does it matter.

the bruce

The problem with government controlled health care is not only the cost. But it will give the government the righ to step in and make decisions in cases like prologing life on ventilators taking the decesion away from the family.

First of all the cost

We do not have eneough health care providers, nurses and doctors to care for every person in the US. The reason is that there is a lack of educators who require either their Masters degree or PhD. Educators are paid less than the students they are teaching. When government steps in controlling the cost of healthcare, the doctors who are already stretched thin will not be able to pay the overhead of their office and staff. I agree healthcare is expensive, but until we address the number of available professionals we will not be able to move into insurance for everyone. Then there is that other little problem, if you are working a min wage job so you can have health care for your family you will probably have to work two jobs just to make ends meet. So here you are working 12-18 hours and meanwhile your neighbor who chooses not to work recieves the same health care as you. Why not, you are paying for him.