The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States

[Oilerman1957]

No you live next to a somewhat large puddle.

hahaha thats sooooo true

[Toronto40]

Canadian official has heart surgery -- in the U.S.

The Checkup - Canadian official has heart surgery -- in the U.S.

Yeap its a good system alright...good enough for the people, but not the governing body...Thats why the Canadian PM Danny Williams went to FLA for heart surgury because as he said, "It is my heart and my health" as the Canadian system could NOT proform the procedure he had done in here in the states...so he went where he could get the best and least invasive surgury.....LOL, the hospital and doctors even offered to wave the normal months waiting period because of his position in the government, he told them , "nope" and went to FLA......oh and he paid for it himself ...and it was free in Canada...

good enough for the people, just not for those are in the government.....Kind of like what our elected reps on the liberal left want to do to the people here, dump socialized medicine on the people, but not for themselves...they still get to keep there "top shelf' coverage.....

Since I actually live in Canada and talk to people instead of grab an article off the headlines, I can tell you the system is not that bad. Most people I know are satisfied with their healthcare here. Also, I think life expectancy is higher in Canada than in the US. I lived in the Us for 37 years before coming here. I sold life and health insurance in the states for 5 years. My wife lived in England for 5 years when she was in university and she said the health care system over their is pretty good as well. Its also universal. I'm not a liberal, but I did watch the movie sicko and it was pretty much on the money. Less all the spin of course. He interviewed a lot of Americans living in other countries and they seemed pretty satisfied as well.

[1CHINGON]

Do without? Do without????? You mean do without 300 channel cable tv? Do without the latest plasma display? Do without the 9.2 surround sound or whatever is 'it' now? Do without the new car? Do without the ridiculously expensive designer clothes? The list just goes on and on.

There is a problem and a significant portion of the problem is so many who won't do without many of these things to pay for their own health care and expect/demand it be given to them. I'm not saying there aren't many who just can't afford it regardless. I am saying the "problem" isn't nearly as big a "problem" as our control grabbers are making it out to be. If the numbers were broken out between those who "can't" get coverage and those who choose not to get coverage there would be far less fearmongering by the administration.

LDB, first, I see the flag on your avatar and wish I knew how to fly mine as proudly as you do yours. Second, you are correct, if I buy this, someone else will provide that.

The problem I see in health care is greed, by those that provide it as well as by those that need it. No, not all use the system incorrectly, but the system has also been broken for a long time.

I remember living in Houston, and once in a while I went to visit the doctor, and simply could not understand how you could charge a patient $50 back then for such a short visit. And those that did not have it had to pay that amount.

If we had a system where there was general coverage for the legals, at one rate for all that participated in this system, I truly believe that would be the valve that released the pressure from the current system, allowing the poor and anyone else choosing this care to be treated with dignity.

If there are others that prefer their current health care system, and want to continue with it, so be it.

What troubles me is the large numbers of people that don't receive medical care when they really need it, and may affect others unsuspecting they are exposed to something they really don't want.

It is the duty of any society to care for all, particularly those that can't help themselves. I do not advocate higher taxes to anyone to pay for anything. What I do demand is that anyone needing medical care receives it, because I don't want to be near sick people.

Further, the government already subsidizes housing, food, etc...
Why not health care for the poor? And the rest of us have affordable rates for health care.

BTW, when I left Houston, that same doctor was charging $75 for a real short visit 5 years ago. Wonder if he has any patients now...

[greg334]

Since I actually live in Canada and talk to people instead of grab an article off the headlines, I can tell you the system is not that bad. Most people I know are satisfied with their healthcare here. Also, I think life expectancy is higher in Canada than in the US.

I think you missed a very important point - it is a great system for healthy people.

I don't get my info from the headlines but see what has happened to people I know. Sitting in a hospital in Windsor while listening to the doctor explain to my cousin and Aunt that there is a limited amount of medication because their age and they will be dead within 6 months. All because of their age - 55.

Until you really need something, then it is a good system. If you want to have behavioral control through medical access, great, this is the system that works. But get a kidney stone and have to wait a month for an MRI or CAT scan.

It's odd that 40% of patients my wife deals with who come from Canada to get their cancer treatment or other things done.

I lived in the Us for 37 years before coming here. I sold life and health insurance in the states for 5 years. My wife lived in England for 5 years when she was in university and she said the health care system over their is pretty good as well.

When she went to the university, she was a student, young student. She got access based on her ability to be part of society, being more useful then say someone who just retired from the chippy shop in Soho. But be old and see what happens. They, like Canada and other countries limit the costs of health care by limiting access.

Its also universal. I'm not a liberal, but I did watch the movie sicko and it was pretty much on the money. Less all the spin of course. He interviewed a lot of Americans living in other countries and they seemed pretty satisfied as well.

Well tell you a secret, the movie is a scam.

I don't know if you actually know how it works in Cuba, it was a lot like the Soviet Union. When you are a foreigner, you get pretty good care compared to the average citizen. I have a friend who worked in the Soviet Union, marrying a Russian girl. The result was better living for the family, access to the stores for foreigners and better health care. Not to mention they were moved into better apartments and had better access to higher education.

What that fat slob left out of the movie wasn't the problems of their health care system, the tax system that was used to support the system or the lack of freedoms. Forget that he left out the fact that Foreign people get better care but more importantly the limitations placed on people with certain diseases, like AIDS. People with some communicable diseases are removed from society, and in some cases they have no access to anyone after that.

[witness23]

When she went to the university, she was a student, young student. She got access based on her ability to be part of society, being more useful then say someone who just retired from the chippy shop in Soho. But be old and see what happens. They, like Canada and other countries limit the costs of health care by limiting access.

For 3 years I drove my 78 year old grandmother to the Niagra Falls area in Canada twice a year to see a heart specialist for her check-ups and medication. They didn't limit her access to medication or care, it was cheaper and she fealt she received better care from that doctor.

[LDB]

If the likely near trillions of dollars in total costs for all criminal aliens and amnesty aliens were available then healthcare wouldn't be a problem. A huge part of the healthcare problem is criminal and amnesty aliens draining the system along with huge drains due to criminals and the improper handling of them as well. We're on a loose jointed liberal ship and far too many are doing no more than bailing the ever increasing flooding from the ship. It's insane and we'll likely never recover but eventually capsize and sink.

[Toronto40]

For 3 years I drove my 78 year old grandmother to the Niagra Falls area in Canada twice a year to see a heart specialist for her check-ups and medication. They didn't limit her access to medication or care, it was cheaper and she fealt she received better care from that doctor.

Thank you witness 23. For every bad story their are 10 good stories. i know people of all ages here and most seem happy. I will admit that I live in Toronto where their is better access to healthcare. But when my mom had a stroke in Oklahoma last year, the ambulance took her an hour away to Tulsa, because the rural areas can't even treat you at their hospitals. Canada paid for one of our friends to have treatment in the states for prostate cancer, but he had complications and stayed longer in the hospital here. Most people I know that have had illnesses here were treated here. And they are all doing well.

[layoutshooter]

The question is, does a "Free" Nation use "force" of any kind to impose something on a private citizen does not want? To force that citizen to purchase a plan that they choose not to? To impose fines? To cancel plans that people hold and like? Those are VERY important questions. Why are they not being answered? How much force is enough? How much force is legal. Is this bill even legal under our Constitution? Does this government have the authority to take over 1/6th of the economy?

I have a plan that will most likely, not for sure, be eliminated under this plan. I will have my CHOICE taken away. Is that right? Why should I have to pay for other care? I pay for ours. That is my only responsibility.

That is not the point. This is this country, under our Constitution. Forget the rest, is this legal here? Is this worth losing freedom over? Forcing this, the use of fines etc IS a lose of freedom. Losing exsisting plans and choices is a lose of freedom, is it worth it? Who SHOULD control your health care choices, you or the government?

[Turtle]

It's a load of crap, but proponents argue that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. Medical school, medicines, medical equipment, everything involved in health care is derived from interstate commerce in one way or another.

In the words of the greatly esteemed and revered Nancy Pelosi:

"Congress has broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production.”

“On the shared responsibility requirement in the House health insurance reform bill, which operates like auto insurance in most states, individuals must either purchase coverage (and non-exempt employers must purchase coverage for their workers)—or pay a modest penalty for not doing so. The bill uses the tax code to provide a strong incentive for Americans to have insurance coverage and not pass their emergency health costs onto other Americans—but it allows them a way to pay their way out of that obligation. There is no constitutional problem with these provisions.”


The auto insurance correlation is likewise a load of crap. Yes, if you drive an automobile you have to have insurance, or pay a fine of you fail to obtain insurance. But that's a condition of driving an automobile, not one of simply living here and being a citizen. Those who do not own or drive a motor vehicle are not subject to these costs and fines, but everyone who want to live and breath, as a condition of doing so, will have to buy insurance, or be subject to fines.

In the words of the Congressional Budget Office (in response to Clinton's 1994 attempt at mandating that people buy insurance):

“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

It's a nasty business, and sneaking it in via the interstate commerce clause is a pretty childish way to go about it. A better move would be to have this pounded out and ratified just like any other Constitutional Amendment, since universal health care reform will affect each and every one of us on a fundamental level, the same as a Constitutional Amendment would. A ratified Amendment would ensure that a vast majority of the people were behind it, unlike the crap that's being shoved down the vast majority currently.

[layoutshooter]

Is not the auto insurance regulations state as opposed to Federal? What do those of you who like this plan think? It is constitutional? Is this a lose of freedoms? Is it worth force?

[Turtle]

Is not the auto insurance regulations state as opposed to Federal?

Yes, it's state, not federal, but it's irrelevant either way. Owning or driving a car is not mandated as a condition of residence in any state. If you don't want to drive, or don't want to own a car, that's fine, you don't have to. And if you don't, then you aren't required to buy insurance, nor are you going to have to pay a fine because you don't have insurance.

But, if you want to drive, then you gotta have insurance, as a condition of driving.

It's like some member of The State, like a police officer, walking up to you and demanding to see your papers. He can't do that. It's unconstitutional. If, however, you are driving a car, he can, for no apparent reason other than asking for it just to ask for it, since having a valid driver's license is a condition of driving the car in the first place.

But having to have insurance, or having to show your papers, is all predicated on driving a car.

With mandated universal health insurance, it becomes a condition of lawful residence in this country. You either buy it, get out, or get fined for not doing one or the other.

[layoutshooter]

That is correct and I contend that it is NOT Constitutional. That is why I as those who want this, how much force are they willing to accept to force others to partake in this, even if they CHOOSE not to? After all freedom is the right to choose.

[LDB]

"oh, thank god, thank god, now that Obama is elected I won't have to worry about my mortgage payment, I won't have to pay for my gasoline". I don't remember the exact quote but the woman was on the news many times with her ridiculous thoughts and quotes. Those are the people who will think this is a great idea and will be fine iwth forcing it on everyone else.

Yes, it's wrong. Yes, it's probably illegal. It's certainly got to be unconstitutional. Pelosi is a tool, a moron, an idiot, a horrible individual. Many others are as well. They can't be removed from the congressional cess pool soon enough. Sadly they aren't sterile and have further polluted the gene pool with liberalism and entitlement.