Don't we Have Universal Health Care? KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Reuters) - As health care generates debate in this year's presidential campaign, about 68 percent of Americans say individuals should be required to have medical insurance, with government help for those who cannot afford it, a survey released on Tuesday found.
According to the survey by The Commonwealth Fund, an independent foundation working toward health policy reform, health insurance mandates were supported by 80 percent of Democrats, 52 percent of Republicans and 68 percent of Independents.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080115/pl_nm/usa_politics_healthcare_dc;_ylt=AhLD_8OJtpTrh8lHCl jg1Nas0NUE

Our current system is BROKEN! HR 676 is the FIX! Will you support HR 676?
http://www.hr676.org/
http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm

Your Thoughts?
Myths on Universal Health Care
By Dr. Marcia Angell, Past Editor New England Journal of Medicine February 4, 2003. Washington D.C.
Myth #1: We can’t afford a national health care system, and if we try it, we will have to ration care. My answer is that we can’t afford not to have a national health care system. A single-payer system would be far more efficient, since it would eliminate excess administrative costs, profits, cost-shifting and unnecessary duplication. Furthermore, it would permit the establishment of an overall budget and the fair and rational distribution of resources. We should remember that we now pay for health care in multiple ways – through our paychecks, the prices of goods and services, taxes at all levels of government, and out-of-pocket. It makes more sense to pay just once.
Myth #2: Innovative technologies would be scarce under a single-payer system, we would have long waiting lists for operations and procedures, and in general, medical care would be threadbare and less available. This misconception is based on the fact that there are indeed waits for elective procedures in some countries with national health systems, such as the U. K. and Canada. But that’s because they spend far less on health care than we do. (The U. K. spends about a third of what we do per person.) If they were to put the same amount of money as we do into their systems, there would be no waits and all their citizens would have immediate access to all the care they need. For them, the problem is not the system; it’s the money. For us, it’s not the money; it’s the system.
Myth #3: A single-payer system amounts to socialized medicine, which would subject doctors and other providers to onerous, bureaucratic regulations. But in fact, although a national program would be publicly funded, providers would not work for the government. That’s currently the case with Medicare, which is publicly funded, but privately delivered. As for onerous regulations, nothing could be more onerous both to patients and providers than the multiple, intrusive regulations imposed on them by the private insurance industry. Indeed, many doctors who once opposed a single-payer system are now coming to see it as a far preferable option.
Myth #4: Claims the government can’t do anything right. Some Americans like to say that, without thinking of all the ways in which government functions very well indeed, and without considering the alternatives. I would not want to see, for example, the NIH, the National Park Service, or the IRS privatized. We should remember that the government is elected by the public and we are responsible for it. An investor-owned insurance company reports to its owners, not to the public.
Phil, the DMV here in NJ is VERY efficient. They've streamlined everything and at most, you're in and out in half an hour. Our government does many things right, Social Security (if the government would stop borrowing from it), our military, police, schools, roads, etc. ALL are forms of "socialism" if you think about it.
Ronnie, if you claim UHC "doesn't work," it's only fair that you back up your claim with reasons as to WHY it doesn't and then provide sources. If making sure the least among us is taken care of then call me a socialist. I don't speak for all Democrats though. But then I suppose you'd have to call Jesus a "socialist" too. Read Matthew 25:31-46
MNVikes, A Single Payer Universal Health Care system will make sense and save us money. The US spent $2 Trillion on health care in '06 and that's without coverage for every American. If we spent HALF of that ($1 trillion) on UHC we'd still be saving ourselves $1 trillion annually AND covering EVERY American! Many companies actually WANT UHC, such as the automobile industry because they're being crushed under the weight of rising health care costs. UHC would lift this burden off of employers while giving employees greater job mobility since they wouldn't have to worry about "losing their benefits" if they left a job. Seems win-win to me!
Sweaty, what about Corporate Welfare?
Nowhere in the Constitution is
Congress granted the authority to spend funds to directly subsidize industry, or to enter into joint ventures with automobile companies, or to guarantee loans to favored business owners. Yet, since the New Deal, by applying very expansive
readings of the General Welfare Clause, the Supreme Court has allowed Congress to redistribute wealth from taxpayers to favored business
interests. Some spending that benefits
businesses, such as infrastructure spending and the funding of courts to enforce contracts, also benefits the population as a whole. But those are expenditures that benefit all companies and citizens generally and are usually not geared to a specific activity or industry. The programs of the corporate welfare state, on the other hand, do not fit this definition.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa592.pdf
Buffy,
Why should we protect incompetent doctors? If a doctor saws off the wrong leg, or removes the wrong organ they shouldn't be sued? You can't put a price on someones life or the impact a botched operation could have on their life. Our government is there to protect ALL Americans, but should take greater care to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Limiting the awards of malpractice suits only hurts the little guys.
Floating, we'll never know unless we TRY. Under the current system, many medical decisions about what’s best for you are now being made by some corporate bureaucrat working for a private insurance company whose main concern is making larger profits by denying your claims. How exactly does that work out to be better for you?

Most people do not know what the Bill of Rights is, let alone anything about economics and quality of care in a single payer health care system.

Because that same 68% flunked Math & Economics.