greydog
Sex God
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2005
- Posts
- 797
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
My Canadian annual health care insurance premium is $648. per yr.
There are wait problems in some areas, but I have never had to
wait for any medical treatment. I have to pay for prescription drugs, but
nothing else.
February 13,2007
By Geoff Schumacher
It's finally becoming clear to a large majority of Americans that we need a better health care system - one that covers everybody at a significantly lower cost than we're paying today.
First, let's give up the worn-out mantra that under "socialized medicine" in Canada or England, it takes forever and a day to see a specialist or to have an operation.
It may be true that it takes longer than we Americans have come to expect to see a specialist in those countries. But that doesn't automatically mean that's how we would do things here. We can learn from others' mistakes.
And second, I'm not hearing stories about people dying in the streets of Canada or England because they couldn't get in to see their doctors in a timely fashion. Generally speaking, people in other industrialized countries are healthier than Americans.
Third, not all universal coverage plans around the globe have problems of this nature. While some complain about England's system, the people of Denmark apparently are quite happy with their health- care program.
And finally, while the Canadians and English wait for their treatment, tens of millions of Americans suffer because they can't afford to even pick up the phone and make an appointment.
The other cliche is that universal health coverage would be too expensive. Guess what? We are already paying through the nose for our health care. Our paychecks are gutted to pay premiums and deductibles. Our employers carry ever-heavier burdens to provide coverage. Then we all pay ungodly amounts to insurers, doctors, dentists, laboratories, hospitals and drug companies when we get sick or injured. And finally, we pay more through taxes to cover the uninsured who show up in county hospital emergency rooms.
Worst case: The tax dollars we'd pay for a universal health system still would be dwarfed by the typical outlays to participate in our current private system.
The irresponsible inaction at the federal level has spurred a number of states to pursue their own health-care solutions. California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is pushing a $12 billion plan that would provide coverage for the state's 6.5 million uninsured residents. Meanwhile, Massachusetts, with bipartisan support, has approved a universal health plan, although it appears to need some tweaking to be as affordable as promised. Other states, including New York and Pennsylvania, are joining the debate.
Amid the encouraging discussion in some states, we learned last week that President Bush's budget would cut more than $100 billion from federally funded health care programs. You heard that right. Bush wants to gouge health programs when we have 47 million uninsured Americans. This makes about as much sense as his disastrous Iraq policies.
The good news is that politicians and businesses are beginning to take seriously the long-standing idea of universal coverage. It wasn't all that long ago, in 1994, that President Bill Clinton's health care plan was ridiculed by the right and demonized by an insurance industry-engineered ad campaign. Clinton's plan was flawed and needlessly complicated but programs aiming for the same goals are getting a more open-minded hearing today.
Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., proposes extending Medicare coverage to all Americans. Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Hillary Clinton, D- N.Y., both likely presidential candidates, have called for universal health coverage. Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a likely GOP presidential contender, wants to expand his state plan across the nation.
Washington Post columnist David Broder believes the big breakthrough could come in 2009, once Bush is out of office and a new president, one who has promised universal coverage during the campaign, is in.
We shouldn't have to wait that long. Our health care system is in crisis and requires a profound transformation.
Numerous countries have come around to this position over the past couple of decades. The United States has been stubborn, a product of its capitalist soul and a powerful health care industry lobby.
But as medical costs rise dramatically year after year, and more people can't afford insurance, it's become increasingly difficult for anybody to support our badly broken system. The level of frustration peaked last week, when Wal-Mart, regularly chastised for the less-than-generous health plan it provides to its employees, joined with a union and three other large corporations to call for universal health care.
This once-radical notion has suddenly gone mainstream, offering a tremendous opportunity to improve American life - if we do it right. Do it badly, and universal health care could be forced back to the sidelines for years.
There are wait problems in some areas, but I have never had to
wait for any medical treatment. I have to pay for prescription drugs, but
nothing else.
February 13,2007
By Geoff Schumacher
It's finally becoming clear to a large majority of Americans that we need a better health care system - one that covers everybody at a significantly lower cost than we're paying today.
First, let's give up the worn-out mantra that under "socialized medicine" in Canada or England, it takes forever and a day to see a specialist or to have an operation.
It may be true that it takes longer than we Americans have come to expect to see a specialist in those countries. But that doesn't automatically mean that's how we would do things here. We can learn from others' mistakes.
And second, I'm not hearing stories about people dying in the streets of Canada or England because they couldn't get in to see their doctors in a timely fashion. Generally speaking, people in other industrialized countries are healthier than Americans.
Third, not all universal coverage plans around the globe have problems of this nature. While some complain about England's system, the people of Denmark apparently are quite happy with their health- care program.
And finally, while the Canadians and English wait for their treatment, tens of millions of Americans suffer because they can't afford to even pick up the phone and make an appointment.
The other cliche is that universal health coverage would be too expensive. Guess what? We are already paying through the nose for our health care. Our paychecks are gutted to pay premiums and deductibles. Our employers carry ever-heavier burdens to provide coverage. Then we all pay ungodly amounts to insurers, doctors, dentists, laboratories, hospitals and drug companies when we get sick or injured. And finally, we pay more through taxes to cover the uninsured who show up in county hospital emergency rooms.
Worst case: The tax dollars we'd pay for a universal health system still would be dwarfed by the typical outlays to participate in our current private system.
The irresponsible inaction at the federal level has spurred a number of states to pursue their own health-care solutions. California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is pushing a $12 billion plan that would provide coverage for the state's 6.5 million uninsured residents. Meanwhile, Massachusetts, with bipartisan support, has approved a universal health plan, although it appears to need some tweaking to be as affordable as promised. Other states, including New York and Pennsylvania, are joining the debate.
Amid the encouraging discussion in some states, we learned last week that President Bush's budget would cut more than $100 billion from federally funded health care programs. You heard that right. Bush wants to gouge health programs when we have 47 million uninsured Americans. This makes about as much sense as his disastrous Iraq policies.
The good news is that politicians and businesses are beginning to take seriously the long-standing idea of universal coverage. It wasn't all that long ago, in 1994, that President Bill Clinton's health care plan was ridiculed by the right and demonized by an insurance industry-engineered ad campaign. Clinton's plan was flawed and needlessly complicated but programs aiming for the same goals are getting a more open-minded hearing today.
Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., proposes extending Medicare coverage to all Americans. Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Hillary Clinton, D- N.Y., both likely presidential candidates, have called for universal health coverage. Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a likely GOP presidential contender, wants to expand his state plan across the nation.
Washington Post columnist David Broder believes the big breakthrough could come in 2009, once Bush is out of office and a new president, one who has promised universal coverage during the campaign, is in.
We shouldn't have to wait that long. Our health care system is in crisis and requires a profound transformation.
Numerous countries have come around to this position over the past couple of decades. The United States has been stubborn, a product of its capitalist soul and a powerful health care industry lobby.
But as medical costs rise dramatically year after year, and more people can't afford insurance, it's become increasingly difficult for anybody to support our badly broken system. The level of frustration peaked last week, when Wal-Mart, regularly chastised for the less-than-generous health plan it provides to its employees, joined with a union and three other large corporations to call for universal health care.
This once-radical notion has suddenly gone mainstream, offering a tremendous opportunity to improve American life - if we do it right. Do it badly, and universal health care could be forced back to the sidelines for years.
Sorry I had to throw that in, because I realize in this entire thread I've sounded less then patriotic, and it's not my intention at all. I love the United States and I just want to see it do better.
