Universal Health Care

[Craig234]

I'm interested mainly in the thoughts of the moderates and liberals, not the cult members who form their views out of ideology only.

(Right-wingers who will post fact-based, not ideology-based, views are invited, too).

You know how sometimes issues get stirred around for years or decades before they 'gel' with the political system and something happens - seems like health care is ripening.

Inertia keeps us going slow and ignoring the issue since it's a big change, but I was reminded by an excellent summary of the issue in Thom Hartmann's latest book, "Screwed: The undeclared war on the middle class and what we can do about it" (I recommend it), just how clear the issue seems to be, and that there are no reasons that stand up to scrutiny why we should not proceed on the issue; just a lack of asking the questions and waiting for someone to make it an issue.

When you compare the current mostly private system to a single-payer system - like Germany, not like England - the advantages all appear to be on the side of single-payer.

It's less expensive, more efficient, and would cover everyone.

Our system today does not work well. We're below the top two dozen nations in all kinds of measurements on quality of health care, and yet we spend $4 trillion, 40% of the world's spending, on it - clearly getting a hell of a lot less than we're paying for. And it's not going into the pockets of the nurses and doctors much - it's going to corporations who can pay off the political system to keep it this way.

For just one statistic, comparing our private system to our single-payer system (Medicare), mediare spends 2-3% on administration, private 10-35%.

Has anyone else researched the issue? What are your thoughts?

 

[getbush]

My thoughts - health care system is fvcked. Purchase stock in the healthcare corporations you hate most. In doing that, you will be able to afford your own care when you need it down the road.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1215/p21s01-coop.html

? Drug companies spend roughly as much on advertising and promotion - $20 billion a year - as they do on research and development of new drugs.

? Overall, American pharmaceutical firms employ one sales person for every physician in the country. They also pick up the tab for doctors to attend seminars promoting their products, which happen to take place in desirable locations, such as Florida and the Caribbean.

Uninsured patients pay more for care
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5290172/

 

[sandorski]

Germany and France have the best systems which are a mixture of Public and Private. Everyone is covered on the Public system, but those who can afford it can get Private health care. Public systems(in any country) usually have wait times for treatment of more serious conditions, such as Cancer treatment, non-emergency bypasses, hip replacements, etc. In those Private/Public systems the Private system can shorten weeks to hours or a few days. These types of systems are probably what Canada will eventually adopt.

Speaking of Canada, it seems whenever this issue comes up in the US someone throws a "look at Canada's system, no way!" into the arguement to throw cold water on reform. Not sure if the European systems are ever seriously considered, probably gets shot down with a few "Socialism" calls for effect.

There's also the false notion that the US is unfairly saddled with the burden of subsidizing other Healthcare systems' Price Controls on Drugs. That's just the Pharmaceuticals attempt to appeal to Nationalism and keep the US Consumer willing to pay exhorbitant prices at the same time.

That said, the Private Insurance Industry seems to be the biggest problem in the US. Too many Beauracracies eating away money that should be going towards Treatment. Add in the need for Profit to that and the problem gets compounded. Certainly "Choice" is all fine and good, but as the US system shows the cost of "Choice" ends up meaning many people have no choice at all(except waiting for a problem to become so bad that it is an Emergency). The European hybrid systems bring the best of both worlds, Full Coverage and Choice(including even a role for Private Insurance).

The biggest advantage to Universal coverage is the increased competitive advantage it brings to the Economy. Some see such systems as Anti-Capitalist/Anti-Free Markets, but they are in fact the opposite. GM and Ford would certainly like to be free from the escalating costs of Healthcare and in some recent cases they chose to expand operations in Canada over the US in part because of Healthcare cost considerations.

As long as Corporations own Politics little to nothing is going to change. The PBS show NOW had a great report on Publicly Funded Elections that seems to be the answer to reforming the Lobbyist shenanigans out of the system. That kind of reform might be necessary before HealthCare can really be fixed in the US.

 

[fitzov]

From what I've noticed about a neighboring state (MA) universal health care is like auto insurance--mandatory--thereby making it "universal". In my opinion that just makes it easier for the insurance companies, along with the medical industry, to gouge people. The only way to make health care affordable to everyone is to make it entirely public.

 

[Pabster]

Universal Health Care is a pipe dream.

PS when you ask for 'thoughts' you don't get facts, you get opinions.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I'm interested mainly in the thoughts of the moderates and liberals, not the cult members who form their views out of ideology only.

(Right-wingers who will post fact-based, not ideology-based, views are invited, too).

So, moderates and liberals can post nonfact based opinions, but conservatives cannot? I also assume that you are referring to people who have a religion with that last part, so people that practice a religion cannot be liberals or even moderates then eh? All of this closed minded thinking sickens me.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: sandorski

As long as Corporations own Politics little to nothing is going to change.

The PBS show NOW had a great report on Publicly Funded Elections that seems to be the answer to reforming the Lobbyist shenanigans out of the system.

That kind of reform might be necessary before HealthCare can really be fixed in the US.

What is their suggestion for getting the Lobbyist's out???

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sandorski

As long as Corporations own Politics little to nothing is going to change.

The PBS show NOW had a great report on Publicly Funded Elections that seems to be the answer to reforming the Lobbyist shenanigans out of the system.

That kind of reform might be necessary before HealthCare can really be fixed in the US.

What is their suggestion for getting the Lobbyist's out???

There are 2 States with it implemented, Arizona and Maine. Politicians are not forced to do it, but those who do can only collect small($5 in one state) contributions and the State Government provides additional funding to match the War Chest of their competitor(s), basically giving both Parties the same amount of funds for campaigning. The way it works in those states makes it more of a way for Politicians to claim not being in the pocket of anyone at this time. This election California has their own version being put up on referendum.

One of the biggest benefits to this system seems to be that it makes it much easier for Average citizens to get involved in Politics. Having connections isn't really important, meeting Constituents is. One of the Fund Raising events shown in the report was basically a Block Party where some 5 different candidates were present and the people could choose who to pay their $5 to(per candidate). In Maine a school teacher was making a serious bid as a Republican using the same method.

Not sure everything I typed is 100% accurate and am probably missing a few key things, would be worth checking the report out though.

edit: to answer your question in short: they had no real suggestions to keep Lobbyists out, they just removed the financial influence Lobbyists have to keep the attention of politicians.

 

[techs]

From everything I have read if you add up what the public and the government already pays for health care and compare it to what would be needed to cover everyone the additional needed amount could be made up by the efficiency of a single payer system.

 

[Stunt]

Wow sandorski...sounds like you are coming around with regards to private involvement in healthcare; something I have long advocated on this forum. You have summarized it fairly well, although you under estimate the value of competition and choice in this field. Again the US is not a good example because a lot of these corporations buy their way out of free-markets and competition.

One thing you have to understand with Universal Healthcare is you dilute the quality of care as government isn't afraid of losing your business; they are the only game in town...waiting in lines? who cares. Because people are under the impression that all heathcare is 'free', people swarm the emergency room (highest cost of care) for minor injuries. Finally from a cost perspective, universal healthcare is not a social safety net; everyone receives...even if you are willing to pay over and above the general taxation. I really hate the idea that several wealthy people would be willing to pay for a diagnostic machine over and above what the government is offering; and they aren't allowed to do this.

But go ahead and spend tax dollars treating millionaires...that makes a whole lot of sense.
Next up...Universal welfare. Why should the poor only get it? :roll:

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sandorski

As long as Corporations own Politics little to nothing is going to change.

The PBS show NOW had a great report on Publicly Funded Elections that seems to be the answer to reforming the Lobbyist shenanigans out of the system.

That kind of reform might be necessary before HealthCare can really be fixed in the US.

What is their suggestion for getting the Lobbyist's out???

Implement what the Conservative Party of Canada has done:

The Accountability Act

Highlights of the proposed legislation include:

* more powers to independent officers of Parliament, including the auditor general and ethics commissioner;
* measures to ensure federal grants and contracts "provide value for taxpayers' money;
* "real protection" for whistleblowers;
* reform of access to information laws
* merit-based appointments to public office;
* a complete ban on corporate and union donations, and an annual cap of $1,000 on individuals' donations to federal political parties; and
* a mandatory five-year break before former ministers and other senior public officials can lobby government.

 

[theeedude]

It's going to happen, since our current employer paid system can't compete in the global economy, so it can't go on forever. And what can't go on forever will eventually end.
But there is no need to rush it like Hillary did. Let it die its own death, and some form of universal healthcare will emerge to replace it.

 

[Pens1566]

A good start would be to prevent drug companies from advertising their drugs to John Q. Public. This serves no medical purpose whatsoever. I shouldn't be going to my doctor to tell him I need to take drug X. That's his job. The pharm companies spend plenty of money anyway on drug-reps that get the info to the healthcare professionals so they keep up to date. Billions a year saved from not having a Cialis commercial every 3 minutes will do one of 2 things: lower costs or more money for research. Win win.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
A good start would be to prevent drug companies from advertising their drugs to John Q. Public. This serves no medical purpose whatsoever. I shouldn't be going to my doctor to tell him I need to take drug X. That's his job. The pharm companies spend plenty of money anyway on drug-reps that get the info to the healthcare professionals so they keep up to date. Billions a year saved from not having a Cialis commercial every 3 minutes will do one of 2 things: lower costs or more money for research. Win win.

Here in Canada drug companies are allowed to advertise but regulated in the following way: They can either say what the drug can do but not the brand name OR say the drug name but not what it does.

This way it forces people to go to their doctor, determine if they have the sickness and he'll give the options. OR they can go to the doctor and ask to be switched to another brand.

The commercials can get pretty creative; the viagra commercial had a guy skipping and whistling down the street with a huge smile on his face...and at the end it says "VIAGRA". :laugh:

 

[Craig234]

Thanks for the good replies from the moderates and liberals. From the replies, it continues to look like the obvious, one-sided choice is the single-payer system and the question is just how to get the nation to actually ask and be open to a change.

I have to add a note blasting the right-wingers here. I left the door open a crack for them to participate and the result was pathetic.

I wrote:

(Right-wingers who will post fact-based, not ideology-based, views are invited, too).

The fourth and fifth responses were from the right. The fourth, quoted entirely:

Universal Health Care is a pipe dream.

PS when you ask for 'thoughts' you don't get facts, you get opinions.

To take the second point first, this post followed three thoughtful, fact-based posts from liberals/moderates. So he was so ideologically blinded that he could not see that the posts befor ehis proved his point wrong, and he was merely 'projecting' that HE was unable to post the sort of fact-based post I asked for - it was exactly the sort I said not to post.

Regarding the first point, there you have the ideological, irrational, wrong right-winger in his full glory, er, shame - mouthing a talking point like a parrot that it's a pipe dream, while every other one of the 36 industrialized democracies NOW HAS universal health care. He has a funny definition of a pipe dream.

Further, he illustrates why *all* of the major social progress in the nation in the last century has come from the left/progressive side. We have every other nation proving universal health care works; what if we didn't, and it was up to the US to be a leader? We'd have the right saying it's a pipe dream.

They did this for every other issue, too - the progressives had to lead on:

- Fighting monopolies
- Improving worker conditions (ending child labor, allowing unions, increasing wages, the 40-hour work week, vacation time, safe environments, etc.)
- Women's suffrage (right to vote)
- National Parks
- United Nations
- Ending atmospheric nuclear tests
- Reducing smog
- Protecting endangered species
- Creating the Federal Food and Drug Agency, requiring the listing of ingredients on food
- The Civil Rights Bill eliminating segregation, breaking down barriers on things like federal court appointments, integrating the military
- Creating Social Security which reduced elder poverty from 90% to 11% (it would be 47% today without SS); coverage for widows/disabled (1/3 of the program)
- Creating Medicare
- Creating the greatly expanded public college system
- Putting a man on the moon (added just for fun)

I could go on, but the point is made: look at social progress, things 99% of our society now says 'of COURSE it should be that way'. Worse, on virtually every program, the right wing opposed it at first and had to be defeated (civil rights bill they did vote for as a majority, but a lower percent than the non-southern democrats).

The fifth response, from a right-winger, posted in its entirety:

So, moderates and liberals can post nonfact based opinions, but conservatives cannot? I also assume that you are referring to people who have a religion with that last part, so people that practice a religion cannot be liberals or even moderates then eh? All of this closed minded thinking sickens me.

He fails to note the irony of his first sentence - it appears to be true, as he himself follows the fact-based posts of the left with his fact-free one.

As for his second point, that just shows his confusion, as my post had nothing to do with religion. In my view, religious people are by nature liberals - and very welcome to post.

But he just invents something that was not said, and then attacks it. Unfortunately, he helps prove that the door for the right to participate is probably better left closed.

Now, back to the liberals. It seems to me that when there are billions at stake, the public debate is dominated by the corporate spending against universal health care; the public does not spend advocacy money the same way; and the corporate money also buys the access to the politicians to thwart public opinion.

The suggestion on public financing would be great, but I thing that'll take too long and we need to loo for how else to get this issue in front of the moderate and liberal public.

One thing that helps is that while the public does not spend to compete against the profit health care industry, other corporations stand to save a fortune by this happening.

So, if we can organize a campaign which gets *them* to fund the campaigns...

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Wow sandorski...sounds like you are coming around with regards to private involvement in healthcare; something I have long advocated on this forum. You have summarized it fairly well, although you under estimate the value of competition and choice in this field. Again the US is not a good example because a lot of these corporations buy their way out of free-markets and competition.

One thing you have to understand with Universal Healthcare is you dilute the quality of care as government isn't afraid of losing your business; they are the only game in town...waiting in lines? who cares. Because people are under the impression that all heathcare is 'free', people swarm the emergency room (highest cost of care) for minor injuries. Finally from a cost perspective, universal healthcare is not a social safety net; everyone receives...even if you are willing to pay over and above the general taxation. I really hate the idea that several wealthy people would be willing to pay for a diagnostic machine over and above what the government is offering; and they aren't allowed to do this.

But go ahead and spend tax dollars treating millionaires...that makes a whole lot of sense.
Next up...Universal welfare. Why should the poor only get it? :roll:

You're missing the point of having a mix of public and private care. Everyone will be entitled to the standard care. Those who want a higher level, or quicker, care can pay for the higher level of service.

The basic approach is that healthcare is viewed as an 'insurance'. This connotates healthcare as a business issue, which is how the insurance companies would like to see it. What we should be referring to is simply ?health care?, and not viewing it as an insurance. The fact that insurance companies are businesses means that they are primarily for profit so their motive are first: to make a profit and second: to provide the service. Given that you have so many insurance companies there is a cost of overhead and profit in every dollar spent on actual health care. Medicare, as a single payer system is the most efficient among all the health providers in the US ? said to be 2% vs the 15-25% for private companies. That alone would be a good reason to take a look at a single payer system.

If all the money spent on enriching the insurance companies were available to a single payer system, there would be a surprising amount of money available for actual health care instead of administrative costs and shareholder dividends.

Also, why would an insurance company be inclined to spend on preventative care (as in the growing years and middle aged) when the benefits of such care would go to the company who is insuring the same people when they become elderly. In the current system it is unlikely that anyone stays with the same insurance company throughout their life. A single payer system would be more inclined to fund preventative medicine as that would pay dividends in the long run and save that entity money. Private companies tend to look for short term gains.

IMHO the fact that US is alone among westernized nations in, 1) having a high percentage of the population without access to regular healthcare and 2) not having universal healthcare for its citizens, speaks volumes about what is wrong with our system.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Wow sandorski...sounds like you are coming around with regards to private involvement in healthcare; something I have long advocated on this forum. You have summarized it fairly well, although you under estimate the value of competition and choice in this field. Again the US is not a good example because a lot of these corporations buy their way out of free-markets and competition.

One thing you have to understand with Universal Healthcare is you dilute the quality of care as government isn't afraid of losing your business; they are the only game in town...waiting in lines? who cares. Because people are under the impression that all heathcare is 'free', people swarm the emergency room (highest cost of care) for minor injuries. Finally from a cost perspective, universal healthcare is not a social safety net; everyone receives...even if you are willing to pay over and above the general taxation. I really hate the idea that several wealthy people would be willing to pay for a diagnostic machine over and above what the government is offering; and they aren't allowed to do this.

But go ahead and spend tax dollars treating millionaires...that makes a whole lot of sense.
Next up...Universal welfare. Why should the poor only get it? :roll:

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's going to happen, since our current employer paid system can't compete in the global economy, so it can't go on forever. And what can't go on forever will eventually end.
But there is no need to rush it like Hillary did. Let it die its own death, and some form of universal healthcare will emerge to replace it.

Both of you must be on the Drugs that the Drug Companies keep pushing on TV because both of you are nothing but puppets for them.

Bolded the biggest bunch of bull.

 

[charrison]

There are health care cost problems in the US. Part of this is due the health care plans being sold as insurance. Insurance by definition is for the unexpected events, not the expected. These plans lead to the same buffet mentality problems that universal healthcare systems have. As long as 3rd party is paying the bill, no one is going to care much about cost of effenciecy.

These health care plans are expensive, so many peple cannot afford them. So when do wind up the energcy roon, we are still picking up the tab as they will not be refused service and they should they be refused service either. So since the hospitals are picking up this bill, it makes everyone elses bill more expensive.

To minimize this, we need to move a high deducatable insurance plans. Yes a real insurace plan to cover the unexpected and the trip to the doc for the sniffles. This would alleviate some the pressures on hospitals as they would not footing the bill for as many uninsured. It would probably is such insurance was purchased by the individual and not their boss. Switching jobs often leaves people without insurance or with very expensive insurance as someone else is no longer subsidizing it.

Indivuals are responsable for purchasing home, auto and life insurance for themseles. It is not unreasonable that should be responsable for picking health insurance plan as well. If their boss wants to suppliment that, that is even better.


We also need better record management. Almost every doctors office you go as great wall of paper records. The cost to store these records(square feet required to store them and human search time) probably easily outweighs what is spent on drug advertisments.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Stunt
Wow sandorski...sounds like you are coming around with regards to private involvement in healthcare; something I have long advocated on this forum. You have summarized it fairly well, although you under estimate the value of competition and choice in this field. Again the US is not a good example because a lot of these corporations buy their way out of free-markets and competition.

One thing you have to understand with Universal Healthcare is you dilute the quality of care as government isn't afraid of losing your business; they are the only game in town...waiting in lines? who cares. Because people are under the impression that all heathcare is 'free', people swarm the emergency room (highest cost of care) for minor injuries. Finally from a cost perspective, universal healthcare is not a social safety net; everyone receives...even if you are willing to pay over and above the general taxation. I really hate the idea that several wealthy people would be willing to pay for a diagnostic machine over and above what the government is offering; and they aren't allowed to do this.

But go ahead and spend tax dollars treating millionaires...that makes a whole lot of sense.
Next up...Universal welfare. Why should the poor only get it? :roll:

You're missing the point of having a mix of public and private care. Everyone will be entitled to the standard care. Those who want a higher level, or quicker, care can pay for the higher level of service.

The basic approach is that healthcare is viewed as an 'insurance'. This connotates healthcare as a business issue, which is how the insurance companies would like to see it. What we should be referring to is simply ?health care?, and not viewing it as an insurance. The fact that insurance companies are businesses means that they are primarily for profit so their motive are first: to make a profit and second: to provide the service. Given that you have so many insurance companies there is a cost of overhead and profit in every dollar spent on actual health care. Medicare, as a single payer system is the most efficient among all the health providers in the US ? said to be 2% vs the 15-25% for private companies. That alone would be a good reason to take a look at a single payer system.

If all the money spent on enriching the insurance companies were available to a single payer system, there would be a surprising amount of money available for actual health care instead of administrative costs and shareholder dividends.

Also, why would an insurance company be inclined to spend on preventative care (as in the growing years and middle aged) when the benefits of such care would go to the company who is insuring the same people when they become elderly. In the current system it is unlikely that anyone stays with the same insurance company throughout their life. A single payer system would be more inclined to fund preventative medicine as that would pay dividends in the long run and save that entity money. Private companies tend to look for short term gains.

IMHO the fact that US is alone among westernized nations in, 1) having a high percentage of the population without access to regular healthcare and 2) not having universal healthcare for its citizens, speaks volumes about what is wrong with our system.

Now if you can just define what standard care is. Some standard care in countries with universal care is not that great of a deal either. While insurance companies no doubt make money in our system, i dont think we are going to be any better off with the an inefecient goverment running the show.

 

[Craig234]

Charrison, why don't we see the problems you predict with the buffet mentality in countries like Germany, which provide universal health care? The facts don't support your argument.

Your argument is not unreasonable in theory, but you should take into account the facts we have.

 

[brandonb]

This is my simple opinion.

Universal Health Care is ok in my mind. Provided that our current government isn't running it. That is not a bash on Bush. Our government is both Republicans and Democrats, but both are equally inept in everything and have been since I've paid any attention to Politics, which has been about 10 years.

Along with Universal Health Care, there needs to be incentives to keep people in good health for a lifetime. There needs to be stricter food guidelines. High Fructrose Corn Syrup in sodas and juices. Its been known to "carmelize" the nerve endings, causing problems such as fatigue which causes people not to want to exercise. Trans Fats, again, clog up muscles and your circulatory system giving you fatigue, which reduces exercise, and promotes health problems.

Both products should be banned if we have UHC.

I'd even go as far to say that everybody gets a free gym membership, and they will have UHC if they use it. If people don't use it once per month, then their UHC rights are reduced. It will force people to exercise. One of the requirements for UHC.

I'd say that UHC is a privledge not a right, so therefore it can be well regulated just like driving privledges are. If you abuse it, then you get it revoked. If you are good and follow the rules, you get to keep it.

But to just allow everybody unlimited access with no conditions, I believe it wouldn't get very far.

 

[Craig234]

Some interesting points, Brandonb.

First, I'll say that none of the issues you raised should be allowed to impede the implementation of UHC. If having them allows or prevents it, then include or get rid of them as needed. They are political issues seperate from the UHC issue, insofar as things like corn syrup have farm industry backers pouring money in to set the policy they want.

I'd love to see corn syrup in food products reduced, trans fats reduced, and more exercise. I have to say, those are the sorts of things democrats are a lot more likely to pursue (I bet few remember that one of JFK's policies as president was to greatly push exercise; he created the physical fitness programs I think are used in schools to this day. In fact, there were public campaigns such as copying the old marines' 26 mile hike that led to Attorney General RFK having to do a 26 mile hike in the Washington, D.C. snow and even his secret service agents had a hard time keeping up. By the end his shoes were shredded).

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: brandonb
This is my simple opinion.

Universal Health Care is ok in my mind. Provided that our current government isn't running it. That is not a bash on Bush. Our government is both Republicans and Democrats, but both are equally inept in everything and have been since I've paid any attention to Politics, which has been about 10 years.

Along with Universal Health Care, there needs to be incentives to keep people in good health for a lifetime. There needs to be stricter food guidelines. High Fructrose Corn Syrup in sodas and juices. Its been known to "carmelize" the nerve endings, causing problems such as fatigue which causes people not to want to exercise. Trans Fats, again, clog up muscles and your circulatory system giving you fatigue, which reduces exercise, and promotes health problems.

Both products should be banned if we have UHC.

I'd even go as far to say that everybody gets a free gym membership, and they will have UHC if they use it. If people don't use it once per month, then their UHC rights are reduced. It will force people to exercise. One of the requirements for UHC.

I'd say that UHC is a privledge not a right, so therefore it can be well regulated just like driving privledges are. If you abuse it, then you get it revoked. If you are good and follow the rules, you get to keep it.

But to just allow everybody unlimited access with no conditions, I believe it wouldn't get very far.

Excellent post sir.

Bottom line is healthy citizens = healthy Country.

The crap we have now is just that crap, and it's getter deeper everyday.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Charrison, why don't we see the problems you predict with the buffet mentality in countries like Germany, which provide universal health care? The facts don't support your argument.

Your argument is not unreasonable in theory, but you should take into account the facts we have.

Rationing and long waits for service exist in every universal health care system. However my post was more about what was wrong with out system, than what is wrong with universal health care provided by the goverment.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Craig234
Charrison, why don't we see the problems you predict with the buffet mentality in countries like Germany, which provide universal health care? The facts don't support your argument.

Your argument is not unreasonable in theory, but you should take into account the facts we have.

Rationing and long waits for service exist in every universal health care system. However my post was more about what was wrong with out system, than what is wrong with universal health care provided by the goverment.

OK, your comments were mainly about the US - but you did also comment about the 'buffet' problem with single-payer.

Can you post some evidence to support that systems like Germany have much problem with that?