I am not for big government. I dislike having any form of government meddle around in my personal affairs more than it has to. I have always felt that it is the right thing to do to help your neighbors in times of need. Our country is very wealthy. We have the resources to take care of those who need medical help. While I think it's a nice thought that people should take care of each other out of freewill, it's also silly to think that it will always happen that way.

Some say that the quality will be affected with nationalized health care. It will produce medical professionals who will get complacent. Government influence will bog down hospitals with red tape. The medical field already governs itself. Salaries would be affected. Certain people will take advantage of the system and ruin it for those who really need the care.

Others plead that legitimate patients are being denied critical care because they can't afford the high cost of good health care. Insurance companies take advantage of both patients and hospitals and drive up costs. Nationalized health care would eliminate that middleman. Hospitals are getting greedy and giving the highest care to those who pay them the most.

These are only a few of the many arguments representative of each side. What do you think?

In short how I suggest you could do this:

Private health care for fast service, free health care for all but you have to wait for your turn if it isn't dangerous to do so. Another thing, the free hospital may also be a private hospital as well at the same time, they could be contracted by the state/county/whatever...

My main point are that no one should ever be denied essential health care just because they cannot afford to pay for it.

Government already pays for health-care through the bad debt expense of private hospitals. I know of no doctors that would refuse treatment to a patient in dire need. This means that national health care coverage already exists without the creation of the huge bureaucracy.

Lets look at it another way. You don’t get sick much, have a job that provides you with health care at a 20% co-pay, and you make 30,000 per year. Your taxes will be increased to cover the huge expense associated with the health care expenses that the nation will incur, even though you have coverage. Next, your employer will drop coverage. Hey if the government will pick up the tab, why not? This will place additional burden on the government system.

One day you fall off a ladder and have to be taken to the hospital because of a broken arm. Because of the bureaucracy, you will have to wait in line with the people (many of which are illegal aliens) who have a cold (Speculation).

OK…now you are a millionaire who could buy a hospital. You have worked hard all of your life and enjoy the fruits of your labor, including going to a private hospital. Is it fair to tax you more to provide a service that you will not use?

Look at public schools. They are a money pit compared to private schools and perform much, much worse overall. My fear is that health care facilities would work in much the same fashion.

Overall, I think nationalized health care is a bad idea (and currently I have no coverage).
Canada has a dismal system; When the government gets involved in providing a service that the market can provide for itself, things go wrong; The government should regulate healthcare not provide it.

The government should stick to what it does best…?

__________________
"Democracy is a process by which the people are free to choose the man who will get the blame."

-Laurence J. Peter

What I described are pretty much what we use here in Sweden already. However, a broken arm are an emergency, even thou it isn't an life threatening one. I was mainly thinking about things like starr operations and artificial hip joints for the elderly. It's annoying to be half blind and it hurts to have a bad hip but it's tolerable for some time, the ques here can be a little long in some cases but everyone get's the care they need eventually. Still some rich people cannot wait and sometimes it's corporations that pay for fast treatment of their key personnel.

So the rich still get treated better? How is the treatment quality? How long is the wait? Is there a lot of fraud, waste, and abuse of the system?

Sorry I am full of questions.

__________________
"Democracy is a process by which the people are free to choose the man who will get the blame."

-Laurence J. Peter

Here:
The rich: use the private sector. Nationalized healthcare only consider you patient X.
Quality: Good, but better in the privare sector as doctors move to private sector for better wages.
Wait: If not urgent, prepare to wait. If urgent, you will be treated.
Fraud, abuse, waste: Not more than the norm. Though we Finns are highly critical of our healthcare it still is much better than available in some other countries (US for example).

But it shows in our taxes.

In your opinion is the benefit worth the cost?

__________________
"Democracy is a process by which the people are free to choose the man who will get the blame."

-Laurence J. Peter

For a better society yes, but our current system is far from perfect. It does need quite some reform.

When I was college, I hit that magic age of 25 and lost coverage from my parents. While the school sponsored plan was relatively cheap, it still took a big chunk out of my limited budget. I regret that it took such a self-centered experience to realise what a burden living without health care could be. There are many people, from all different situations, that live without health care. Yes, I would hope any given doctor would treat a life threatening condition, but what about when the conditions aren't severe, but hampering? Sure, I could have afforded to pay cash for certain services, but there was no way I could continually pay for medical expenses without making huge sacrifices to an already modest lifestyle.

Recently, my wife was traveling in Africa and her friend needed medical attention. She was taken to a hospital and it cost her nothing. That country had free health care for everyone, and obviously, for its guests. While this country has plenty of faults, I was touched by the gesture.

I've also enrolled in the VA healthcare system, which cost me nothing as a vet. I used this after I lost coverage under my parent's plan. I was not impressed. I had gotten a bad case of bronchitis and was told that the next opening was in two and a half months. That was crazy. How can a medical facility expect its patience to predict months out when they were going to get sick? In all fairness, they do have a walkin system on a first come first serve basis. Since the VA hospital was a good drive, I didn't care to go, mainly out of stubborn anger. I did not remain in the program.

I do agree with the statement that there should be free healthcare for everyone. The rich can pay the extra premiums to get higher and faster care. It may not be the best, but anything is better than having little hope or having to spend a large portion of one's income to pay routine healthcare bills. I especially think it's important to the multitude of low income families with kids or single parents who are having a hard enough time making ends meet.

While a national health care system would mean more taxes, as a wealthy nation, I can't imagine how anyone could be so cold as to be living their comfy middle class or elite class life and scoff at losing some extra vacation money for a truly good reason. I'm fortunate enough now that my wife and I have good jobs and live well. I feel that it's a priviledge more than a burden to share some of my wealth. I know how much I appreciated that kind of charity when I was in need.

The big issue for me is to make sure our government isn't wasting that money on BS. It's going to happen and that is my only reservation. I'd still vote for it, though.

But you scoff at the VA, the only form of fully funded federal health care in the U.S. The great thing about the U.S. is the choices that we get to make. I can choose to go to college and be covered under the schools health care or not. I can choose to work hard to pay for coverage or I can get employed at a place that provides coverage. By instituting nationalized health care you erode my ability to make a choice.

While nationalized health care may be the sensitive thing to do, it is not in the spirit of our great country. Some argue that we are one of the only modernized nations not to have a nationalized system. I think that is what makes us different from them, and better.

__________________
"Democracy is a process by which the people are free to choose the man who will get the blame."

-Laurence J. Peter