In a county as rich as ours why is it so hard for us to come up with a workable plan for national health care?

will someone address the issue of national health care for all. pros and cons. Then maybe we can send this to our government. Also what did you think about Michael Moore's movie " SICKO"

A man who's username is Doc is a perfect example of why Americans don't have universal health care.
Americans have this strange idea that if the USA implements socialist health care that it is a communist country. (as Mr. Moore points out in the movie) They fail to realise that the fire department, Police departments, and librarys are all socialist programs.
Imagine for a second that your house is on fire. Your standing on your lawn, and a fireman comes up to you.
Hi there sir/mam. My name's John and I'm here to decide what the best situation is here. We can save your family members for X dollars each, pets for Y dollars each, and begin putting out the fire for Z dollars an hour, please sign here.
How is that any different then asking a man who cut off his fingers which he could afford to sew back on?
Socialised healthcare does not equal slavery.

I also read a response on Y-answers where a woman said : I have a disabled child if this was a socialist system they would probably have made me abort the child.
WHAT???!!? Where would you come up with a crazy idea like that?! I can say with 100% certainty the government has 0 power to MAKE a person abort a child. It hurts my brain to even imagine someone thinking that canadian doctors do that.

As to the we have higher taxes view point- if the USA took half of the money they spent killing people over seas and spent it on health care...

Pro: Everyone gets health care.
Con: Everyone but the rich get crappy health care.

Because health care is a cash cow for insurance companies. They, the insurance companies, like other large corporations have their teams of lobbyists paying into election campaigns. As a result congress does little or nothing. Meanwhile the people are at the whim of these companies and continue to suffer with either overpriced insurance, inadequate coverage, compromised health care and decisions, or no insurance.

What we need is a law that says 85% of all revenues collected by insurance companies must be paid out.

There really is no benefit to the "free healthcare" bit people are throwing around.

It would cost more (we鈥檇 just pay the bill through our taxes instead of an insurance company or hospital), be harder to get access to and be of overall lower quality.

And really, anything Michael Moore is in favor of should make you a bit suspicious. The guy is a charlatan hack.

Gosh, let's look at Russia and Cuba. Both were/are socialist governments. One has already collapsed under its own weight and stupidity and the other is on life support with a very bad prognosis.
In one of the smartest countries on the planet, why would we want to shift from a capitalist based economy where people strive to get ahead and wealth has privilege to a socialist based economy where where the only ones with privilege are the political leaders? Socialism equals slavery. I'll pass.
And Michael Moore? He's a loon and I don't support loons.

I think the answer to your question lies with the pharmaceutical companies high cost of prescription drugs. This cost is transferred to the Government when the drugs are on the Federal National health plan. You must remember, that these Companies spend millions on research and design before a certain drug ever reaches the patient! I must admit though, that President Bush puts military hardware before a National Health Service solution as have most Presidents before him! But to be fair, It would be pointless to have a great National Health Service if it weakened your Countries first line of defence! There is no way any American worth there salt would choose to speak Arabic just for a decent health service! I know I would'nt. Have a great day.

I agree: if we can afford to squander TRILLIONS of dollars for an unconstitutional, illegal, unjustifiable, immoral 'war', we ought to be able to come up with a few billion to provide quality health care for anyone who can't afford it (the well-to-do can still pay their own way). -RKO- 07/08/07

One reason our current healthcare system is so expensive is that every state has its own laws on what must be included in the health insurance. Just as when you buy a car you expect it to have certain things--breaks, tires, an engine--when you buy health insurance there are mandatory services that must be covered. States are in charge of regulating these madatory coverages. This is why you rarely see national health insurance companies; it's just to hard for companies to sell insurance in multiple states that all have different health insurance regulations. By nationalizing these regulations, we would begin to see huge, national insurance companies. These companies would have a greater buying power and threrefore could cover medications and services for less.

But that doesn't solve the problem of greedy insurance companies denying these services to their customers. Nationalized healthcare solves this problem nicely. Of course, though, we have heard complaints from socialist countries about how slow their healthcare system is. But we musn't forget that any plan that has been put on the table by the democrats does not require everyone to participate. Of course, everyone who doesn't have healthcare (which is a considerable portion of the country) will participate in the program along with anyone who would, financially,greatly benifit by switching to a slower, cheaper healthcare system. Everyone who can already spend the money on their current insurance can keep it if they please. Again, the benifit of nationalizing the healthcare system is the same as nationalizing mandatory insurance regulations--you create a huge buying power in the medical supplies market, the us government. Just as in any business, medical suppl ies companies along with doctors will be willing to charge less to the government in exchange for a large quantity of sales.

This is, effectively, the "wal-mart effect." The medical field won't be able to refuse business to the government, a huge buying power, because if they did they would be losing a huge share of business.

Basically, there are too many getting way too rich off the way the healthcare system is right now. They stand to lose too much money. Therefore, they don't want to change that!

And they put too much money into the couffers of the political parties and candidates. Voting for that would be like biting the hand that feeds.

I haven't seen the movie. But I think that too many are pi*sed off about it, so there must be some sort of truth to it. That has been my experience - when someone screams about something being lies, it usually is true.

Well, I supose it depends on who exactly would benefit from not having such a system.

it's all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ they want ours!!! they could care less