<i>American health care system has numerous problems. However, it is by far the best system in the world. Unless of course you listen to Michael Moore.</i> Just curious; how can we the best in the world when this happens: <b>while the U.S. spends more on health care than other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the use of health care services in the U.S. is below the OECD median by most measures.</b> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States So we are spending more than everybody else, but getting less out of it. Yet we are #1? By the way, a close friend of mine has cancer. Under the current system in the US, she will NEVER be insured since it is a pre-existing condition. If she lived in Canada, she would have no problem.
If you split healthcare in to two parts you will understand the paradox. 1. Low hassle easy universal access at appropriate point of entry to healthcare system (ie usually NOT the ED), preventative, well patient, and chronic condition care (US does a very poor job, UK Canda do a good job) 2. Emergent and inpatient care (US has no equal) For the money that we spend it is criminal that we are not tops in both categories. If you actually care about high quality healthcare for all and not just about uninformed venting then chcek this site out and see what you can do to be part of the solution. It will also save the country many trillions as we will be able to cut healthcare expenditure as a % of GDP and give our companies the competative edge those from other nations already enjoy. http://www.pnhp.org/
Socialized medicine has been around long enough to compare numbers other than the cost per individual. So much for the "free" health care they could have received at home. But what about the cost advantages of socialized medicine? Look at the data and don't accept the socialist 'central planning' approach and the politically correct media.
<i>Look at the data and don't accept the socialist 'central planning' approach and the politically correct media.</i> Yes, our system works great if you are insured. But, if you are not insured, it does not work very well. Which insurance company do you think will touch anybody with a pre-existing condition?
<i>http://www.pnhp.org/</i> The link you are quoting argues for single payer health care. I used to be for it until I noticed that Conyers, their main proponent in Congress, wants to fund it with a 0.25% stock transaction tax. That is simply insane and may actually reduce revenue (and put a lot of discount brokers out of business) rather than pay for single payer health care.
The whole point of this plan is that it doesn't need to be paid for with a new tax, if done right it should result in a net savings. The idea of having to pay additional monies defeats the whole purpose which is to get better healthcare, for all in the US at less cost by reducing non healthcare related "overhead", currently at least 40%, with a medicare type administration of the program, which has an administrative overhead of between 3-7% depending on what you take in to account.