In the article Austin Roth referenced on Swedish healthcare, their were complaints about wait times for heart surgery and hip replacement. But Sweden only spends $2704/capita. Canada suffers from the same complaints as Sweden but only spends $2989/capita. But remember for this money they cover 100% of their populations. In all the command healthcare countries in Europe and Canada, wait times could be eliminated with a simple $1000/capita increase in health spending. They would still spend less than the US but I would suggest their healthcare would be equal or better.

Just to throw out a couple of indicators. Life expectancy males – US (75) Sweden (79) and Canada (78). For females – US (80), Sweden (83) and Canada (83). Infant mortality/1000 births – US (7), Sweden (3) and Canada (5). The full statistics for all measures and countries can be found at:

http://www.who.int/whosis/en/

The healthcare expenditure table is found at:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html

Our healthcare system is in need of serious surgery. It’s eating up around 18% of our GNP and continues to grow unabated. Within 5 years that number will exceed 20% of GNP. Just think, we will have one person in our economy taking care of 4 productive people. As healthcare expenses grow we will within 50 years have one out of every 3 people taking care of 2 productive people. At some point our economy collapses.

Here’s the reason why:

It was only later that I discovered why the insurance company was stalling; I had an option, which I didn’t know I had, to avoid all the approvals by going to “Tier II,” which would have meant higher co-payments. The process is designed to get very sick or prosperous patients to pay to jump the queue.

Limit fraud and corruption WITHIN the medical insurance companies and you fix health care.

While that may not be the cure all, they emphasize to me that the amounts of bureaucracy, out-dated software, and downright greedy foolishness within medical insurance companies is what hurts the average American.

Health care is such a sensitive issue. I’ve been denied coverage over knee surgery (degenerative condition) that my doctor recommended 110%. The cost of surgery paled in comparison to the upkeep of my condition. My doctor fought and fought (almost 9 months) with my insurance company to get me coverage. All the while I was in some serious pain and on crutches as my conditioned worsened. I was finally approved and damn near walked out of the hospital pain-free. Now I’m glad I had a doctor willing to fight for me but that isn’t always the case. I had a condition that wasn’t my doing, very good insurance coverage (90/10), haven’t used it accept for the occasional physical over a 6 year period, and I’m denied the first time I REALLY need it. This is the type of issue that really causes the “radical reformer” to burst out of me but I know that being that way yields little to nothing.

We may not be entitled to health care in the constitution but to me, reforming health care for the benefit of American citizens is just the right thing. I’m a “profit for the win” type of guy myself but… well… do we have to profit like this (current health care)?

On the same vein of public schools, everyone is insured a free public education, but those who can afford it are by all means able to go to private schools if they feel it is better. The same could apply for medicine. Yes the US has some fantastic private clinics that the very rich go to, but I find it obscene that it is assumed that in order to keep the very rich VERY healthy, you must keep the poor totally unprotected.

As to this:

Opponents raise the terrible specter of a government bureaucracy that would replace the private one that spends so much time and effort finding ways to deny claims rather than facilitate them.

This is one of the most stupid of the arguments against universal coverage. No, socialized medicine is not the paradise Michael Moore suggests, at least in Spain the waiting list for certain specialties is rather long (though urgent care always takes priority). On the other hand, this has much less to do with bureaucracy and much more to do with having many people in the system.

Let me clear this up right here. There is no review process. There is no government employee writing “denied” for ANY medical treatment. That’s right, no one waits at home hoping that the public healthcare system approves the treatment your doctor prescribed you. If the doctor prescribes it, it happens. And if it happens, I will never, ever, be forced to pay for it, i already do that through taxes. This whole spectre of a bureaucrat deciding what citizen 1249723-K needs in terms of medicine is myth. The doctors diagnose prescribe and treat. That really is it. People with more means can supplement with private medicine if they wish.
We here in the Mediterranean are infamous for being complainers. We complain about pretty much everything under the sun, including our healthcare. However, no one has the slightest desire to go to the American model. To us that would be like complaining that our car sometimes loses oil and proposing to junk the thing.

The trouble is that nothing decent could get past. the fortress built by lobbyists and their friends in Congress. There is also that sector living in the dream land of ivory towers who can’t see further than their own current bank accounts. It’s amazing to read stories of those who see the light when their own health hits an unforseen catastrophe, and they are screwed by their insurance companies, Too late is too late, however.

I guess some people would prefer building more mortuaries than dea;omg wotj jea;tj care.
It’s like our insane justice system. We spend a fortune on prison systems rather than a few dollars on prevention and rehab.

It’s a shame to see low we are sinking as a society.
.

Of course, for decades, what do so many people care about facts and law when they have other things they want? I’ve even read drivel by a professor of constitutional law that claims, with the help of creative interpretation by the law by lawyers and activist judges (which includes outright lying), that there is a constitutional right to a guaranteed minimum income. None of the other things you mentioned, but perhaps a high enough guaranteed minimum income might move people closer to acquiring all those other things.

Then we go on, to the original thread remarks:

“Plans which minimize the disruption to the existing system are more likely to succeed than plans that rip up the existing system and start over,” said Gruber

Yes — Hillary’s conceited, outrageous, radical fascistic federal-government takeover attempt (which resulted in the 1994 election results, which surprised nobody but elitists out of touch with reality) is a mistake that likely will not be made again.

Of course it should involve minimal change! Work with existing system features as much as you can!

The “non-starters” are variations of a single-payer system

BZZZZZZZZZZT This is weasel language used by chickens–ts unwilling to say “[federal] government health care.” WHO’S THE PAYER?

which, according to the more than 8,000 physicians who back it,

zzzzzzz

Activists, political more than medical

zzzzzzz

would save $350 billion a year, “enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans.”

The dreamers are wrong. And just wait 10-20+ years from how when health care cost controls cannot be avoided.

The point is, expanding the existing program, Medicare, to everyone is historically radical (as was Medicare), but is hardly unexpected today and in fact uses and builds up something already existing. If anything, expanding Medicare is the best way to go for those who want more government health care.

Opponents raise the terrible specter of a government bureaucracy that would replace the private one that spends so much time and effort finding ways to deny claims rather than facilitate them.

zzzzzzzzzz

That’s not what they do 100% of the time.

zzzzzzzzzz

We get most of our mail through “a self-supporting postal corporation wholly owned by the federal government” while those who can afford it use FedEx and other private providers.

HINT: Why do the use these carriers instead?

Also, have you ridden Amtrak a number of times to learn how bad it can be?

Why not our medical care? We have the example of Medicare which is far from perfect but works reasonably well for older Americans.

That’s the point and this is what not only should have been emphasized, but presented without the boring Usual Suspect whining. Medicare has existed for decades; it remains radical to extend it to everyone (citizens only, Democrats!) but it is not surprising any more and is becoming a mainstream, not a radical, concept and proposition.

In fact, why waste time playing games as the states have (they probably are simply waiting for the federal government to take over health care) and just start working on what it would take to extend Medicare to all citizens, absorbing VA, Medicaid, Indian Health, and other health programs? Don’t play any stupid games any more with “premiums” that pay only about 25% of the costs; just make it clear that all will be cared for and it will be paid by taxes. (Let the legislators argue what sources and kinds of taxes.)

It hasn’t been “insurance” for ages, anyway, but instead periodically-prepaid comprehensive health care.

America delivers better health care than Europe

I still say America has the most advanced health care system in the world, the one that people do everything they can to get access to when they are really sick.

Government control IS socialized medicine, and despite the misrepresentations and half-truths of Micheal Moore and his ilk, there is no socialized medicine state that is remotely comparable the the US system.

Things like making sure there’s a minimum level of care that all insurances must cover; rules about prexisting conditions, and how they can be defined; I could probably go on here.

This should probably be counterbalanced with reform about the way malpractice is treated, tehreby cutting costs on the doctor’s side as well.

Finally, there ought to be more consideration of a two tier system, where most routine stuff is covered by stuff akin to the walmart model, with stuff being tranferred to doctor’s when the situation isn;t solvable at the phy asst, nurse level.

This also means that we will prbably have to recruit a lot of PA’s and nurses. The professional socieites will have to suck it up, and expand their training programs (which seem to have large waitingin lists, at least where I live, chicago), thereby ridding them of the ability to set prices based on scarcity.

If we’re getting gov;t involved, we migth as well rip the whole thing apart. Medical care is something that onvolves an irrational choice (how much is the health of a child worth to a parent? That question alone makes my point), and the market doesn;t neccessarily apply normally, much like in warfare.