Our primary goal should be to spend enough on healthcare to continue searching for better treatments and eventual cures for heart disease, cancer, and the other great killers in the world. Our higher purpose is to end suffering. Efficacy boards full of bureaucrats have been incapable of pursuing this mission anywhere in the world Our most effective system (that's why they come here, that's why we dominate medical advances) accomplishes this primary mission.

We need to provide basic care to all Americans who want care (10MM to 15MM people). We should not force care on those who don't want it. We should not provide care for non-Americans until we get our system to work.

Canada provides care to all for $3,300 per person. The U.S. currently spends $4,000 per person and does not cover everyone.

The government has never been able to control the cost or effectiveness of anything (of the many examples, education comes to mind - we spend more per student BY FAR than any country, yet our 11th graders are ranked 25th in the world). The reasons are many - but two are key: the government is not accountable (by nature) and the government does not manage healthcare day to day so it can only impose lower PRICES (this is different than costs) which leads to rationing and mis-allocation.

It's not the 85 year old prostate cancer person cited by the last respondent, it is the 23 year old English boy who did not fit the rules and died (was killed) due to bureaucrats.

Mark Kennedy

I wish an "ObamaCare" opponent would come up with an argument that strays—just a little—from the fear-mongering rhetoric of the GOP (which represents the wealthy executives who have everything to lose when ordinary Americans gain access to cheaper, better health care.) I was raised by a mother who came from the generation that was brainwashed into believing the government was trying to brainwash them—with History textbooks, with PBS, with toothpaste. But I do not come from that generation. So my experience with government has been very nice, actually. And, as much as the GOP tries to convince me that all government is like the DMV, I just don't see the resemblance from agency to agency.
The government gave me money and cheap tuition so I could go to college and graduate with a degree. It helped me buy my first house, provided nice roads for me to ride my bike and drive on. When I couldn't afford health care for my daughter, it provided it for her and it was the best care with which I've ever been acquainted.
I camped at Mount Rainier National Park last week in a beautiful campsite that cost me a whole $15. Try to find a spot at a KOA or any other private campground for $15. You can't. And I'll be you it wouldn't come close to the beauty of the one I stayed in.
I am getting so tired of the same old argument that the government can't do anything well. I REJECT THAT.
No, our education system isn't perfect and for those of us who prefer better and can afford better, there is better. There's private school. Government never told you you couldn't attend private school. But for the rest of us, the poorest of us, public school is a luxury. It provides a decent education when the only other option would be NO education. I don't care where our 11th and 12th grade students rank in the world. How would they rank if our entire education system was privatized?
History's got a pretty good guess and it goes something like this: The rich get smarter, richer, more prosperous, more exclusive.
The poor fall further behind, the gaps widens, the illiteracy deepens.
That's what is happening with health care.
So Mark Kennedy, and all you other "government sucks" GOPers out there, I've got a few questions for you:
1.) If government is so ineffective, why are so many of you so crazy about the military. Aren't you aware the military is a government entity?
2.) If the free market always knows best, if competition is what gives the best product to the consumer, then why are so many of you convinced that the mainstream media—the epitome of the free market wrongly gave the election to Barack Obama? Shouldn't the free market have the right answer?
What is up with you people?

Mark Kennedy:

Our primary goal should be to spend enough on healthcare to continue searching for better treatments and eventual cures for heart disease, cancer, and the other great killers in the world. Our higher purpose is to end suffering. Efficacy boards full of bureaucrats have been incapable of pursuing this mission anywhere in the world Our most effective system (that's why they come here, that's why we dominate medical advances) accomplishes this primary mission.

We need to provide basic care to all Americans who want care (10MM to 15MM people). We should not force care on those who don't want it. We should not provide care for non-Americans until we get our system to work.

Canada provides care to all for $3,300 per person. The U.S. currently spends $4,000 per person and does not cover everyone.

The government has never been able to control the cost or effectiveness of anything (of the many examples, education comes to mind - we spend more per student BY FAR than any country, yet our 11th graders are ranked 25th in the world). The reasons are many - but two are key: the government is not accountable (by nature) and the government does not manage healthcare day to day so it can only impose lower PRICES (this is different than costs) which leads to rationing and mis-allocation.

It's not the 85 year old prostate cancer person cited by the last respondent, it is the 23 year old English boy who did not fit the rules and died (was killed) due to bureaucrats.

Mark Kennedy

Then, you SERIOUSLY believe that no for-profit insurer would ever allow some patient to die rather than pay for treatment? You've NEVER heard the phrase "pre-existing condition"? Are you aware that the for-profits have "controlled cost" by essentially two methods? 1) jacking up the cost of premiums at double the inflation rate, and 2) denying coverage whenever possible?

Yes. illness and death will still be a part of the human condition -- even under the best possible healthcare system.

The "just let 'em die" approach that you hint at as a way of handling all the Americans who cannot pay for healthcare often seems implicit in the for-profit setup we have today, and which Republicans claim is so wonderful. If the industry spokesmen and their political enablers were to openly label their approach in that way, I'd have to at least give them some credit for intellectual honesty. But, what I see hinted at everywhere is that, somehow the "healthcare fairy" will make it so we never confront that alternative.

Which is willful ignorance!

I saw a recent poll that 77% are satisfied with the quality of their healthcare in the USA but you wouldn't know it from the BO administration. So it is fair to say that most people in America are happy with their healthcare.

We are continuously told that we must give 45 million uninsured people health insurance. But is that number real? I have seen studies that many of the uninsured children are eligible for Schiff or other programs. As much as 58% of the uninsured are the invincible 20-35 yr age group who don't think they need insurance even if they can afford it. Another large number is not citizens and shouldn't be included in the 45 million uninsured but is. Only 7.8% of the population earning over $75K is uninsured mainly because they choose to be. Also, don't forget that many get their healthcare free from our emergency rooms, which is now subsidized by Medicaid. So the main issue is not quality of healthcare or covering everyone with health insurance. The real problem is the increasing costs of healthcare and health insurance.

Part of the reason for the increased cost is health care researchers have done a great job finding new technology to fight cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc. Additional technology and tests mean higher prices. But can you put a cost on your life? Do we want to take incentive away from the people who are responsible for saving and/or improving our lives? Government healthcare will do that. Instead of criticizing the drug companies and doctors for the state of the art healthcare system in the USA, we should be trumpeting their successes, which have helped extend the lives of millions albeit at higher costs. These groups should be approached as partners to find reduction in costs not as evil villains. The same can be said for healthcare insurers.

The Obama healthcare system would eventually become a single payor system like Medicare and would cost trillions which we don't have. If private healthcare systems are taxed as is being discussed, that transition would occur very rapidly. A single payor government healthcare system would cause health care to be rationed and quality to suffer. That is not an option!!! Let’s use good ole American ingenuity to solve the problem not a government healthcare solution which just creates different problems that the ones we have now.

How do we reduce costs? You take the cost out of the system!!!!

1. Empower a task team to reduce beaucracy and costs in Medicare and Medicaid. Mandate a 30% reduction by reducing the beaucracy.
2. We should broaden the use of HSAs and offer this to everyone who pays income taxes including people on Medicaid and Medicare.
3. Allow people to keep and roll over HSA funds if not used.
4. Limit litigation awards which is a huge cost for doctors. Or at least make lawsuit loser pays for legal costs.
5. Establish a law that all doctors and dentists advertise or publish the cost of office visits and cost of procedures, which might also bring more competition into the marketplace.
7. To increase competition, a Federal charter should be established which would be a gateway for insurers to sell policies in all 50 states,
8. High risk pools could be organized and subsidized by donations from charities and ministries.
10. Neighborhood health centers are sprouting up and this idea to provide uninsured low-income people through volunteers and ministries should be expanded to all states.
11. Eliminate income and corporate taxes for hospitals, doctors and nurses in exchange for reducing their prices the same percentage. Healthcare costs would be reduced significantly.
12. Use the Fair Tax model and eliminate taxes on the chain of medical supplies, their raw materials, and on healthcare insurers which would further reduce healthcare costs.

Summary:

the left can give you much in the way of "facts" and anecdotal evidence suggesting that we need govt run healthcare. If you google healthcare in socialist countries, you can find anecdotal evidence that single payer healthcare means rationing care and long lines.

The one thing that you won't hear from them is a way to pay for this without adding trillions to the deficit. From what I hear, the government will subsidize the public option by taxing many small businesses and wealthy individuals. But this doesnt raise enough money, So they say they will cut costs in medicare which is another way of saying ration care to the elderly.

Pretty soon we will be like the movie solien green or Logans Run. The old will be made into food and will not need health care.