Seeing how 50% of all personal bankruptcies are over medical expenses, it makes fiscal sense to have a Canadian-style health system.
I know a couple who love the U.S. but would never immigrate because of they could never give up their health benefits in Canada. In fact, they have to spend more than six months of the year in Canada to prevent the loss of their medical benefits even though they love Arizona and would prefer to only visit Canada for family holidays. They remain Canadian citizens for one reason only: they love the socialized medicine and prescription drug cost.

If you're perceptive,you'll realize that
Health Care is the #1 concern of citizens.

There is going to be Health Care reform,
absolutely. Probably a hybrid form of your
Socialized Medicine. You can thank your
greedy Corporate Health care with their
outrageous,skyrocketing prices.

If you're perceptive,you'll realize that
Health Care is the #1 concern of citizens.

There is going to be Health Care reform,
absolutely. Probably a hybrid form of your
Socialized Medicine. You can thank your
greedy Corporate Health care with their
outrageous,skyrocketing prices.

I'm afraid, with the Dems taking over and therefore able to control events on the Hill (i.e. can't hit them for blocking tax cuts if the votes are never brought up) that it will take some serious overreach on the Dem's part to enable the GOP to get back in.

Mark,

It's really sad that you want America to lose! The Dems haven't even taken control yet, but you're ready to call them a failure!

All I ever hear are pessimism and negativity coming from you guys on the Right! Wake up, we live in the greatest country on Earth!

Please, trust the voters and our democratic process- if Republicans don't believe in democracy, how can we export it to the middle east?!?!?

Coulterfan,

Calling Dems a failure is based on their past history and comments. It is not a judgement on them winning this week. We on the right know we live in the greatset country in the world and THAT is why we struggle so hard to keep making it better by putting in the best person for the job. Your newly elected leaders are not the best, they just happen to be the most media favored which helped them and their far left base get in. Don't woory though. We survived the misery index of the Carter years and we will surely survive these next two years.

Yes i think, you should avoid saying it as a failure because i think every country has good points as well as bad point but this does not mean that we stop working on the development.

coulterfan

Here's the problem. The left "did not" win on the 7th., the republicans "lost", and it is because they didn't have a grasp on their core values over the past six years, ie. big gov, big spending, etc. But we'll be back, I'm certain of this.
If you'll notice though, we conservatives never whine about voter fraud or irregularities in the system, conversely, you liberals continue to act like little whinny babies whenever you get your little feelings hurt. Could you imagine what the climate would be like if your side had lost??
We'd be having thirty recounts and lawsuits being filed by the hundreds, maybe thousands.

No coulterfan, you cannot claim that the left won on Tuesday because like myself, there were literally millions of voters that were dissatisfied with the current administration and many of those voters are not in tune with their core values and consequently turn coat when under fire. However, I for one have had the patience to allow our leaders the necessary time to fight the global war on terrorism and to defeat our enemies wherever they exist. They certainly repaired a failing economy when they took office..didn't they.

Hypocrisy has already arisen within the Democrat party when you hear "It's not our (democrats) responsibility to create a war plan, that's for the President to create." If I recall, the Democrats claimed to have a "better plan" for fighting the war, now they're saying it's not their responsibility. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

I do know this. Come 2008 our side will beat the Dems like a drum on topics that they fail miserably on...like the war, the economy, taxes, education, funding the military.

face it - a billion $/wk thrown down the sectarian toilet in Iraq would buy coverage for the uninsured kids in america.

that plus medical malpractice(tort)reform...which won't happen in a dem congress...just like it didn't happen in a gop congress.

The GOP has had six years to do what ever they wanted and guess what, the voters threw them out.

"Far left base" - More moderate Dems were elected on Tuesday than liberals. Check out the poll numbers and you'll see that even your own "far right base" crossed over to the dreaded "liberal" side. Why, because they wanted a change, tired of failed policies, corruption and lies.

Go ahead and blame it on the media and predict doom for the country. Afterall, the media did it. The GOP is the victim. Yeah, right.

The point you miss, Mark, is that now doctors are controlled by mega health companies. So they must see a certain number of patients per day. Let say 20. 19 of them may only take 20 minutes. But that last one needs much more time. But the doctor doesn't have it or he won't meet his quota. So patient number 20 doesn't recieve adequate care.

There must be a middle ground here, Mark. And since the Dem's are in control, you sir are the one that is going to bend.

Mark,

Last time I checked, Tim Noah didn't win a congressional seat. His views are not ubiquitous throughout the Dem establishment. We have a big tent; we take all views (ok, most views). We do not goosestep. I know the lack of goosestepping is alien to you, but you can't expect one article on one web site to automatically become the Dem policy.

So, no, this one article doesn't mean we "hand back" the congress.

Your habit of constantly pointing out all the traps we could fall into, if anything, helps us avoid those traps in the first place. If any powerful Dems read your web site (and I bet they do), you are helping them be better governors, and consequently help them retain their power.

Thank you.

"in socialised medicine countries, people die at much higher rates due to delayed or incompetant health care than they do in the United States."

Could you back that assertion up? All the statistics I've ever seen show US mortality rates somewhere around 17th among industrialized nations, even though our medical costs per person are more than double that of any of those nations above us.

What the solution is for healthcare is up for discussion but denying that as a society we are paying more for inferior results in unsupportable.

"in socialised medicine countries, people die at much higher rates due to delayed or incompetant health care than they do in the United States."

Could you back that assertion up? All the statistics I've ever seen show US mortality rates somewhere around 17th among industrialized nations, even though our medical costs per person are more than double that of any of those nations above us.

What the solution is for healthcare is up for discussion but denying that as a society we are paying more for inferior results in unsupportable.

i just wanted to pop in a comment regarding the issue of socialized healthcare and england's NHS system. i am an american student doing my graduate studies at the university of oxford and i can tell you right now that the national health system here (socialized) is horrible. we absolutely do not want this system in our country! i suggest to anyone who supports this type of healthcare system to actually move to england and try it out for a couple of years. you will change your mind, i am sure of it.

that actually brings up a larger point i think, and that is people in the states (mostly democrats/"liberals") are always going on and on about how much better things are in other countries (like european countries) and so on, while they've never done anything but possibly holiday for a week or two somewhere. again, try actually living in another country; working in another country; studying in another country. this is the fourth country i've lived and worked in outside of the states so when i say that a country based on "conservative" ideals (smaller government, strong national defense, etc.) is a much better country, people should listen. i know what i'm talking about.

cheers.

We spend more on health care in America than any country on earth and where does the money go? Some of it goes to the providers, yes, but a huge portion of it, far too much, goes instead to the bloated insurance companies who will (and should be) become the real losers when the new system is enacted.

No Democrat has suggested, nor will they, eliminating choice of doctor as an option, nor will they prevent ANYONE from choosing a better health insurance option than the one offered by the government. But a single-payer system is the only way to go. Over 47 million Americans are uninsured and only go to the doctor when they are gravely ill, which costs far more than preventative care.

Don't believe the "scary monster" theories floated by guys like Noonan. They call it socialized medicine to make it sound bad. Universal Healthcare is the proper name. It means providing basic services to those who need it most- the uninsured and sick of America.

What's so bad about that?

Mark-

Your bias against Europeans certainly informs your perspective on their health care system. However, I do agree with you that we don't need what they have. We're a bigger country, with different needs.

But what you fail to acknowledge is that no one wants to eliminate private health care altogether. What many of us want is a national health care system that is free and available to the poor. What you also fail to acknowledge is that if America does it, it will likely be better than anything anyone else in the world can come up with. Obviously, I have more faith in my country where these issues are concerned. I think we can do better than Britain or France.

I've heard from friends in Canada that truly talented doctors often leave there to practice in the US where they can earn a higher wage. With this is mind, allowing a capitalistic system to thrive will mean that the best doctors, while perhaps costing more, are available should you choose to utilize them.

Frankly, I'd rather have access to the best money can buy for my family than be stuck with an 'average' doctor striving to provide 'average' service for a State-set wage.

In a socialized medical system, there is no reason for a doctor to strive to be extraordinary. Likeise, you bury your patients in red-tape and bureaucracy.

I find it surprising that all your conseratives who SO SUPPORT THE TROOPS allow them to endure the horrors of 'socialized medicine" Ask any service man if he has a choice of what doctor he sees when he goes to the base hospital, or what dentist he can choose from. And ask him if all things considered he is happy with the health care provide to him and his family.

Now before you go off on the horrors of vet hospital, I am stricting discussing the active duty military.

If you find socialized medicine so bad, where doctors are paid a fixed salary, where the patient has no choice in doctor selection, why do you then allow our military to be locked in such a system!!!!!

Personally, could I have the 'free' medical benefits I enjoyed while on active duty as a civilian I would readily accept them.

But what you fail to acknowledge is that no one wants to eliminate private health care altogether. What many of us want is a national health care system that is free and available to the poor. What you also fail to acknowledge is that if America does it, it will likely be better than anything anyone else in the world can come up with. Obviously, I have more faith in my country where these issues are concerned. I think we can do better than Britain or France.

DougWh is right. Wealthy Republicans should have nothing to fear about having supposed "low quality health care." Since they can afford the high insurance premiums for the best doctors money can buy, they won't ever have to subject themselves to the services available to the "common people."

However, for those millions of uninsured regular Joe's with families to feed and declining employer-provided insurance packages, free or government-subsidized health care is a lot better than none at all.

Mark -

"What is wrong with socialised medicine is that is doesn't work..."

First, most advanced industrialized countries don't have "socialized" medicine. You're inserting that language for its scare value. What most peer nations of the US (namely, EU countries, Japan and Canada) have is a form of "single payer" system - ie, hospitals and caregivers are a mix of private and state, but all expenses are covered by the govt. Also, in most countries, private insurance remains an option for those who choose to go that route.

As far as your assertion that "socialized medicine" doesn't work... says who? The longstanding myth is that "The US has the best healthcare system in the world." The reality is that the US ranks last among its peer nations in just about every object measure of healthcare outcomes. The US has the lowest life expectancy among wealthy nations. The US has by far the highest infant mortality rate, and the lowest percentage of its population that is of normal body mass. In health statistic after health statistic, the US ranks last or next to last.

On the other side of the coin, the US spends much more on health care than any other advanced industrialized nation. We spend more both on a per capita basis as well as a percentage of GDP. We spend more than twice per capita what most EU countries spend.

It is also widely acknowledged that we have some of the finest doctors in the world, and some of the most advanced medical technology (although, med tech in the EU is perrty much equivalent).

Basically, we spend way more than other countries, have great doctors and technology, and yet we are the most unhealthy. To put it another way, we are getting by far the smallest bang for our buck. So you tell me: if we are spending more and have great doctors, why are we so lagging in healthcare overall? Could it be that it is the way we aportion and deliver healthcare that is the problem?

Let me say straight out that I think private, for profit competition has proven itself the best economic system in almost all arenas. There is no denying that, and any democrat would agree. But there are areas of our economy where a fully privitized for profit system may not be the best solution. While "socialized medicine" sets off alarm bells for most Americans, the country seems happy enough to have "socialized" roads, schools and armed forces - right?

The problem with fully privitizied healthcare is three fold. First, universal health-care systems minimize their risk by covering everyone, ill and healthy alike - but private insurers minimize theirs by avoiding the sick. That situation leads to problems two and three: contrary to the idea that private systems run more efficiently, private healthcare has huge administrative costs associated with insurers seeking to deny coverage to the sick. This in turn means that sick people, the ones who need coverage the most, are the ones who get excluded from coverage.

So, contrary to what some well-meaning posters have said here, this really isn't just about covering the "poor" - its about providing healthcare to those who are sick, or those who find themselves not in a group plan through their employer. Outside of the very rich, just about anybody can find themselves without coverage! Woe unto you who might be between jobs. Woe unto you who might have a pre-existing condition. And woe unto you who work at a company that doesn't provide a health plan (only 61% of US companies do, and that is falling fast as premiums skyrocket)

The result is that nearly 50 million Americans go without coverage. To those of you who say that you don't want to pick up the tab for someone else's healthcare: guess what? You already do! Except you pay much much more for it than if we just all paid into a single payer system. Remember, the uninsured don't have regular access to a physician for preventative health maintenance - so they end up going to the ER when a health condition gets to the point of being an emergency. That is an extrememly expensive, and ineefective way, of managing healthcare. The uninsured cannot be denied emergency treatment at the nation's hospitals, but the costs get passed on eventually to the insured, whose premiums or taxes go up or whose benefits go down.

Many Americans point to horror stories of having to wait for access to advanced treatments under single-payer systems. Two things: first, those horror stories are routinely exaggerated by folks who are making out like bandits in our current system (ie, the health insurance industry). Ask most Canadians, Franch, or Beligians if they like their system, and you will almost always get a generaklly enthuisiastic "Yes". Second, if you don't think we have treatment rationing in our own healthcare system here in the US, think again. To pay for the administrative inefficiecies of our system and for the enormous profits of insurers, there are tremendous pressures to limit treatment expenditures. Also, while you might wait for a time to have an MRI done in Canada (though probably not much longer than you would here), if you don't have insurance in the US you just don't ever get the MRI period. Ever. That's a pretty long wait! I ask you - is that moral?

To sum up, no system is perfect. But, there damn sure is a better system out there than the broken one we've got. Fully privitized healthcare in America is clearly the costliest, less effective means of delivering care in the world today.

face it - a billion $/wk thrown down the sectarian toilet in Iraq would buy coverage for the uninsured kids in america.

Yes, but Republicans don't think the government should help people because that would be communism.

Well stated, Aarontime. . .

Furthermore, I thought Republicans cared about the 'unborn'. We have one of the second highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world (second only to Latvia- even Cuba has a lower rate!) Our babies are two and a half times likelier to die during infancy than most of the industrialized world!

Do you NOT care about babies after they are born? What about pre-natal care? What about the health of their mothers?

Aaron,

Just a for-instance: in socialised medicine countries, they don't count pre-mature birth babies in their infant mortality rolls. They count such as essentially miscarriages, and that is why our infant mortality rate is seemingly higher - we're more honest about how we report things. And that brings us to this: in socialised medicine countries, they'll blandly assert that an elderly patient "just died" of old age, when what really killed them was an easily avoidable post-op infection which American hospitals prevent because they are under the financial gun if they don't. Remember, in socialised medicine, the government runs the show: you're asking the people who run the DMV to make things more efficient.

If you could show me a way to get a single payer health plan which would be as efficient as the private sector in the actual delivery of health care to those who need it, then I'd sign on; but I know you can't. You should bear in mind that I, too, am opposed to the health insurance companies...but a bit differently than you are: I think that there should be no health insurance, period. People have to have the cost of health care made noticable if they are to both control their health care spending and have the incentive to carry out those simple, inexpensive preventative care measures which will keep their health care costs down.

As far as the political issue goes, however, it all works to GOP/conservsative advantage: no matter how you structure a socialised medicine system, you are going to be taking choice away from Americans, and they won't stand for it.

"I think that there should be no health insurance, period. People have to have the cost of health care made noticable if they are to both control their health care spending and have the incentive to carry out those simple, inexpensive preventative care measures which will keep their health care costs down."

Ans this paragraph sums up why no one really believes that there is such a thing as "compassionate conservatism" Your out and out hatred of the poor, no matter how you disguise it, is painfully evident. Have you even considered the implications of what you wrote? If you have an ounce of love in your heart for anyone other than those who agree with you, you haven't.

"As far as the political issue goes, however, it all works to GOP/conservsative advantage: no matter how you structure a socialised medicine system, you are going to be taking choice away from Americans, and they won't stand for it."

Straw man singing in the dead of night...take this BS lie and make it fly....

No Mark. You Radical Rightwingers are hardly the ones to be talking like you understand the word "choice." Once again, no one is suggesting the removal of private health care. We are saying that we want a plan offered to all Americans that gives them MORE choice. You can't spin your way out of this one.

Mark,

Please provide links and facts for your assertions- there is NO EVIDENCE that what you claim is true.

Moreover, recent polls have shown that Americans overwhelmingly support 'Universal Health Care' (nearly two-thirds in most polls). And which party do Americans trust more on health care issues?

And it's a myth that universal health care takes away choices. Kerry was proposing a plan to give ALL AMERICANS the same care that members of Congress receive (a choice between Blue Cross and Healthpartners). Do members of Congress not have the same 'choices' that other Americans have?

Do YOU get to choose your own clinic, doctor, etc? I know that I HAVE to go to a Healthpartners clinic to receive full coverage, and I certainly don't choose the physician available to see me! And sometimes I have to wait WEEKS for an appointment!

Do you still live in the 50's era of a 'Family Doctor', or what?

And, why don't you care about children and their mothersafter they are born?

I think that there should be no health insurance, period. People have to have the cost of health care made noticable if they are to both control their health care spending and have the incentive to carry out those simple, inexpensive preventative care measures which will keep their health care costs down.

WOW! Talk about lack of compassion. . . do you really think ANYONE (except the extremely wealthy) could afford this? What about if they got cancer and couldn't afford treatment- would you just let them die???

I see, you really do only care about 'unborn children', but after they are born they are left to fend for themselves!

Mark -

"...in socialised medicine countries, they'll blandly assert that an elderly patient "just died" of old age, when what really killed them was an easily avoidable post-op infection which American hospitals prevent because they are under the financial gun if they don't. Remember, in socialised medicine, the government runs the show: you're asking the people who run the DMV to make things more efficient."

Mark, you have some pretty fantastical alternate reality going on in your head there.

Again, we aren't talking about third world nations here. We're comparing ourselves to our peer nations - the advanced industrialized democracies of the EU, Canada, and Japan. You obviously haven't been out of the country much, Mark. The ridiculous picture you paint of ederly patients among our peer nations "dying of easily preventable infections" is truly, absurdly laughable! Tell me, where did you get this little tale? Have you actually ever been to a hospital in France or Canada? Well, I have - and believe me, they can and do do all of the very same stuff our hospitals can. Nobody is left to "die of simple infections". Sheesh, this is a candidate for the most absurd thing you've ever said!

"...we're more honest about how we report things."

And you base this baseless assertion on what? The overall gist of your post is that the EU, Canada, and Japan are lying socialists - because "it's well known fact" that "socialists" just lie! Damn lying liars!

"If you could show me a way to get a single payer health plan which would be as efficient as the private sector in the actual delivery of health care to those who need it, then I'd sign on..."

Oh, you mean other than the dozens of examples I already gave you? OK. How about the US military healthcare system? It's single-payer, and its excellent. Or how about France. Or Germany. Or Denmark. Or Belgium. Or Canada. Or Sweden. Or Japan. Or...

Listen Mark - the single-payer healthcare system is not some pie-in-the-sky theory that we can only imagine how it would work in practice. It is in fact in practice in every single advanced industrialized democracy in the world. Every one, that is, except the US.

"I, too, am opposed to the health insurance companies...but a bit differently than you are: I think that there should be no health insurance, period. People have to have the cost of health care made noticable if they are to both control their health care spending and have the incentive to carry out those simple, inexpensive preventative care measures which will keep their health care costs down."

Wow - that's pretty radical. Look, I am not at all opposed to the idea of "personal responsibility" that you imply here and that you Repubs are generally so high on. People should be more responsible with their health - I'm with you there. But that is precisely one of the many reasons why single-payer healthcare has proven itself a better system! If you have no access to medical advice, and if you have no access to regular maintenance care, then how can you take the proper steps towards keeping yourself healthier? Under our system, lots of people are shut out of having the tools they need to take responsibility for their own healthcare - and so you and I and everyone else end up with the burden of paying for their health problems. Does that make sense to you?

So you're against Social Security, against Minimum Wage and Wroker Protection, against Health Care Plans?!?!?!?

Why don't YOU stand up for these ideals and see how the Republican Party does in the future!

One last thing Mark -

"...no matter how you structure a socialised medicine system, you are going to be taking choice away from Americans, and they won't stand for it."

First off, most Americans have no "choice" under the current system. People who have no insurance don't get to choose anything at all, and those who do only get to choose from a very limited list. Secondly, single-payer systems do in fact offer choice of doctors.

This whole "no choice" stuff is purely a scare tactic cooked up by the insurance industry. For someone who claims to be against the health insurance industry, Mark, you sure parrot a lot of their misleading talking points. Perhaps you aren't even aware of where these talking points are coming from.

It's not that "Americans won't stand" for a single-payer system. It's that the insurance industry will lobby (read: bribe) congress to gut any plans for a single-payer system. Even the so-called healthcare reform plans offered by Kerry and Clinton kept the insurance industry as the gluttonous middle-men in healthcare delivery. Instead of cutting the insurance industry out altogether, they were merely offering a plan for the tax payer to subsidize insurance premiums. That is only a half measure that really amounts corporate welfare.

Mark,

Shall we tell these naive liberals to go live in one of the countries with socializedf medicine and then report back? Chances are slim they'd stay there very long.

I've read a little on the topic and it appears that the reason millions don't have some sort of medical coverage is "THEY'RE TO LAZY TO SIGN UP FOR IT"...plain and simple. Forteen million Americans, out of the so-called 44 million, haven't signed up out of either ignorance or laziness, so which is it. Is it the government's duty to drive people to apply for medical insurance, I don't think so.
Let's be realistic here. We Americans have it better in this country than any place in the world, and although you lefties won't agree with this statement because you continue to preach the 1st Amendment, it continually amazes me how you whine and moan and seem to blame everyone but yourselves for your own actions.

My biggest concern is who says the Government can do the job better? I mean honestly folks take a look at all the current systems we let the Government run in our country and you tell me how many of them are run well?

DMV? IRS? Forestry Service? BLM? Parks Service? Public Transportation? Cal Trans? (Or whatever state you live in), Public Schools?

By and large I'd say the government sucks at doing anything efficently. Sure, there are some things they provide to all (Transportation and Education come to mind) that I think they should do, but they don't do them WELL. I think we can all think up off the top of our heads how we've complained about past failures of the government in every system it's taken over. Do you want to put your health there too?

I'm sorry, but I don't care how you slice it, the Government will still be involved, and they just aren't the best thing out there. Do I think the current system is FUBAR? Heck yeah! But I don't think we need to put the government in there where it'll just stomp around and smash everything up.

After 18 years in the Military, I, for one, can tell you quite a few nightmares about a government run healthcare system that will scare you into going to Canada or even Mexico for treatment of simple common cold.
If you really want to see what a government run health care system is really like go to a Veterans Hospital and ask the nurses about the care the patients get there compared to a for profit hospital. Make sure it is a nurse that has worked at a for profit hospital first.
My wife, a Registered Nurse who worked at a Veterans Hospital in South Dakota, tried to stop a Doctor from using the defibulator paddles on a patient that was awake and screaming to the doctor that he was okay because the machine that monitored his heart went on the fritz and showed him as flatline/code blue. She (my wife) was later admonished by this doctor and head nurse because she as a nurse had no right to tell that Doctor what to do ever again. She resigned and went to work at a for profit hospital.
Doctors that are fully employed in the Miltary (we called them lifers) or Veterans Hospitals are there for one reason and one reason only, they cannot afford the malpractice insurance rates because they have been or afraid they will be sued way to many times in civilian life. Any Doctor that is worth his or her salt in the medical profession quits the military after one term and goes to work making money in private practice. The rest stay in the Military, or go to work for a Veterans Hospital.
My military neighbor in Grand Forks AFB, ND, went to have a cancerous rib removed from her right side...the doctor removed the one on her left because he didn't realize that his right was her left. She could not sue... She went back and this time they left a scalpal in her... again she could not sue..... she finally went to a "for pofit doctor... and he removed the scalpal. No problems this time. These are just 2 of the many stories I have and these are the mild ones.
These stories are not uncommon in Europe either. People who smoke in Europe are not operated on because they (the government) feel that the smokers are going to die of cancer anyway, and we might as well treat just the healthy to cut costs. How would you like it if someone you knew had AIDS or was a drug addict and our government felt that way about them.. Or, if you were over 70-75 years old and just a "burden" to society. "They are high risk so we just won't treat them and save tax money."
Is this really the type of health care you want in this country? Government Controlled? What is to stop them once they have control? You? How do you go back? Have you ever seen an entitlement reversed after it is started? I never have! It is better not to let them have the control in the first place as far as I am concerned.

I am amazed at how easy it is for people to simply ignore responding to the things they don't want to admit.

No one, I repeat, no one is suggesting the end of private medicine. What many are in favor of is phasing in a program that provides health care, quality health care, to Americans who cannot afford it. We should start by making it immediately available to children. All of you pro-lifers out there should be on board with this.

What amazes me is how little faith you have in America when it comes to health care, yet you blindly fall in line with a President with no plan for victory in Iraq. You think our current administration can do no wrong in the war on terror, and you give them that faith in the face of contradictory evidence. Yet you lose all faith that America can care for its poor.

Poverty, racism and lack of health care are all related. We need to address these issues.

Aaron,

No - because if when you see the doctor there isn't a significant cost, you will go see the doctor more than you need to, and have no incentive for preventative maintenance. This is just human nature, something liberals deny exists, and thus don't understand why all of their plans never work.

The truth of the matter is that the socialised medical systems of Europe and Canada don't work - you can, in theory, get whatever care you want at no direct cost, but the system, itself, has no incentive to treat you, especially if you've got a disease difficult to treat. Think of it like this: the bureaucrat in charge can spend vast sums of the annual budget and lots of time ensuring your survival of a tricky disease, or the bureaucrat can put you on a waiting list which will have you die before they get to you - given human nature, which do you think is more common? (I know, you have to admit to human nature here...this, if you do it, will be your first step to conservative sanity...it is scary, but give it a shot; we won't ask for independent thought from you until you've read Kirk..we have a "go slow" approach with liberal converts).

There shouldn't be any surprise that Mark would simply make completely unsupported assertions that "the socialised medical systems of Europe and Canada don't work" and insist that everyone agree. It is completely in character with the hostility to contrary information that has characterized the entire Bush presidency. Do the statistics indicate better health care outcomes in other industrialized nations with single-payer systems? Well, since that calls into question the more pleasing idea that our health care system is actually superior, then the statistics must be lies, mistakes or propaganda. It could never be possible that they might call into question our personal introspective consideration of the realities of "human nature". Ultimately, clapping one's hands over one's ears and saying "la-la-la-la-la" will be an ineffective strategy because the costs of our "superior" for-profit health care system continue to outpace all other forms of inflation and this country will be compelled to adopt some form of single-payer system as a last-minute response to a crisis. The better approach would be to think NOW about the problem and plan for a uniquely American system that takes the lessons learned in other nations and applies them to our own situation. Unfortunately, there are some who will insist on standing on the deck with pieces of the burning masts coming down around them and wonder what it is that everyone is so excited about.

Mark -

hehehe - I like your spunk. Thanks (but no thanks) for the offer to slowly convert me to conservatism!

About human nature: the way you describe it, conservatism seems to assume the very worst in people. I think a more accurate view of human nature can be obtained by acknowledging our worst tendencies, yes, but to also knowing that humans have the ability to objectively see the destructive outcomes of our worst instincts, and to adjust accordingly. Part of the human condition is learning how to overcome our worst selves (which I think we as a nation did a little of on Tuesday!).

Believe me, I have seen the worst of humanity up close traveling around the world in my previous career as a photojournalist - it ain't a pretty picture. I am not at all naive about the ugly and self-interested side of human nature. (One could make the argumet, however, that in consistently denying corporate greed and malfeasance, it is you Republicans who are rather naive about human nature).

But lets look at how human nature comes to bear in medicine. You seem to think that doctors are more compassionate and concerned in their care delivery if they work in a private hospital and get reimbursed through a insurance company. Conversely, you think that that very same doctor will not be compassionate and be totally unconcerned about delivering good care if he works in that very same private hospital, but gets reimbursed by the government. Because lets make it clear - the single payer systems of the EU and Canada predominantly feature doctors working in private hospitals who get reimbursement through a government pool rather than through a private insurance company. Is a doctor's desire to give good care predicated upon whether his reimbursement comes from the government or from an insurance company?

My experience is that doctors the world over do what they do because they have a strong desire to care for people. That's the real reason they put themselves through the enormous sacrifices demanded by medical school. It's not to get rich. Indeed, these days few doctors here become very wealthy - they usually are saddled with enormous med school debt and other expenses. To say that doctors under a single-payer system just have no incentive to give good care is absurd. Not only that, but I can tell you from my experiences in hospitals in the EU that the doctors there are every bit as concerned about giving good care as doctors here in the States.

You also go on to paint an image of doctors being beholden to bureaucrats under the single-payer system. "...or the bureaucrat can put you on a waiting list which will have you die before they get to you - given human nature, which do you think is more common?", you write. I'm glad you brought this up, because the scenario you describe is exactly what happens now under our private insurance-based system. Increasingly, under our system, doctors don't get to make decisions about the proper course of medical treatment - instead, a flunkie administrator from the insurance agency who never went to medical school is the one who dictates what treatment a patient will receive!

Ironically, the horror story you describe of a bureaucrat denying a costly and complex procedure precisely because it costs too much describes exactly what happens here in the US under the helm of for-profit insurers. The army of administrators employed by insurance companies are basically there for one thing: to find ways to deny treatments that might cut into their profitability. If you are a student of human nature, Mark, then you can easily appreciate how human greed can adversely affect the delivery of care under the insurance-based system.

To wit, I myself have been a victim of this. After a bout of diverticulitis, the physician I was referred to, who was a well respected GI specialist, recommended getting a colonoscopy. Diverticulitis can be a precursor to colon cancer, which is particularly deadly. The best way to check for pre-cancerous polyps is to do a colonoscopy. However, the insurance company denied the procedure altogether! The doctor had to fight tooth and nail, and submit a mountain of paperwork to some young insurance bureaucrat who has no medical training in order "justify" the procedure. All to no avail. In the end, I had to just pay for the procedure myself - to the tune of $10,000. An insurance bureacrat totally denied me this potentially life-saving procedure. However, each month my company and I have to pay our insurance premiums.

My best friend in college got leukemia a few years ago. He worked as an engineer at an aerospace firm in Phoenix, had a high-level, well-paid position, and so thought he had sterling insurance coverage. The only cure for leukemia is to have a bone marrow transplant, which at the time had already been around for about 15 years, and had over a 90% cure rate when a proper donor match was found. However, the insurance company decided they would not approve this treatment. Their reasoning?: they conveniently labeled the procedure "experimental", eventhough doctors had been doing it with much success for well over a decade! By doing this, they weaseled out of paying for the procedure - which they have high incentive to do, given the pressure to maximize profits. Like your imaginary scenario, the insurance company benefits most by just letting a costly patient like my friend die. Fortunately, his family was able to scrape together the over $100k to get him the transplant that saved his life. Today he is once again a healthy productive member of society - no thanks to our truly immoral private insurance-based system. Had he not been able to come up with the funds, his insurance company was content to hand him what was a certain death sentence.

Now, since he has a "pre-existing condition", my friend can no longer get health insurance at all! God forbid he should he should get in a car accident and have emergency surgery - he'd have to sell his house just to cover the expense.

Finally, you re-assert your undocumented claim that, "The truth of the matter is that the socialised medical systems of Europe and Canada don't work...". But the incontravertible fact is that in wealthy nations using a single-payer system, the citizens live longer, healthier lives. Please, do not take my word for it - look up the stats yourself. Life-spans are determined by independent studies done through the World Health Organization and other agencies, and this is a measurement that is easy to do. The fact is, for all of your wild mythologies of people being left to die, the citizens who get their health care from a single-payer system live longer lives than we do. Life-span is the most objective measure of health outcomes that exists.

aaron and diana and others:

there may be some sort of compromise that would work better, i admit. however, like i said before, come live in england! or any other country with a single payer system, or universal health care, or socialized medicine...whatever you want to call it (it's just semantics anyway, no one is trying to scare anyone). i have, for a few years now, lived in different countries with these systems and my own, personal experiences, along with those of just about everyone i've met, has shown me that this is not the way to go.

i know you point to statistics, but we all know that stats don't tell the whole truth. in fact, having taken oh-so-many stats classes at university, i know this first hand as well. ask me and i'll tell you all about how to get the statistics you want. i'm not saying our current system is fantastic and it shouldn't be studied and possibly altered, but please listen to people like me who have actually experienced this and are not just speaking from anger or with partisan opinions.

and correct me if i'm wrong, but we do have medical benefits for the uninsured and poor, do we not? again, don't get crazy angry, i'm not saying it's the best system and doesn't need to change, but we do have something to start with.

on a personal note, i also think it's a little unfair and a bit rude for you to say things like republicans don't care about the poor and that we are all rich so why are we complaining... my family is completely middle class (having come from poverty actually) but still gives a lot of time and money to charities and services for the poor...i took out a lot of loan money to go to university...it's just that republicans want to do things in a different way. one idea we (if i don't speak for you, my apologies) like to promote is the notion of personal donation. why don't we make it source of national pride that we raise people who give personally (either with time spent volunteering, or with money), rather than it always and all coming from the government?

that's all i have for today, thanks.
cheers.