I never really followed the reasoning behind universal health care. Health care sucks because the government got involved with it in the first place. If you want to lower the cost of health insurance, you must keep government as far away from it as possible.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html

chris......how exactly does adding this additional layer to the health care industry(insurance companies) make it better or cheaper?
Seems to me it is merely a give away ........a kind of government mandated corporate welfare.

I know that I'm going to get blasted by the bleed heart liberals for this one but I don't care. Let me first say that I am an EMT, and I work with patients every day (Regardless of Economic situation). We provide services regardless if they have insurance or not, our services are free. Now it is another matter when this patient is transported by Ambulance, and then of course any medical care after that. I have seen it all, and many many people would be appalled at how some of these people treat medical service personnel. They act as if we are their to serve their ever whim. I suppose in a way that we are up to a point, but in the end, the majority of these patients will never pay a dime for services, rather the tax payers will be picking up the tab.

Let get a few things straight. NO ONE IN THE US WILL EVER GO WITH OUT EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE. You call we come, we don't ask about insurance, or current residence status we do our jobs.

Like UC pointed out, if you are poor, the Government has already covered you, again by taking our money to pay for them. But I have to ask, if you are poor and you make the decision to bring a child in this world, and economically you can't afford it, why does it become the rest of societies responsibility? I know WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN. You know I care about kids, I realize that it is not their fault, and believe it or not their is a much simpler solution. It's called Orphanages. Yes that's right I said, if an adult is so careless, and reckless that they bring a child into this world that they can not take care of, rather then allowing this person to demand that everyone else pay for them and this child, I say that we separate the child from the problem. In an orphanage, the child will be given everything they need, food, health care and education. Maybe this will also give the child a chance at a life that they might not of had in their given situation.
Now that we got that out of the way, something else that you should also note UC, are the mandates that the State Governments place on Health Insurance. A lot of states mandate things that must be in the premium rather then allowing the purchaser to choose what they want to be covered for. This drives up the cost for individuals paying for coverage they do not need.

@ David Is that a serious question? You purchase health insurance, so that when you do have a catastrophic accident, you don't have to sell your house to pay for it.

again.......how does adding a highly paid ceo to the mix make health care cheaper or any better than could otherwise be expected if insurance companies were to be cut out of the mix and replaced by a system where everyone is tax'd and the system is run by the government?
........aaaah, yeah, this is a serious question.

David, along your logic, the best question to ask is why we should put government between people and healthcare?  It is indisputable (except by retards) that government causes price increases in virtually every sector they try to regulate.  I'd go into detail, but I'd just be harping on that main point.

To answer your question, though, the insurance industry exists for the same reasons that the lending industry exists.  People can't afford it themselves.  Yeah, you can argue that THE GOVERNMENT could pay for everything, but that would just create a cycle of ever-growing expense -- much like we're already seeing.  Insurance companies are, simply put, the alternative.  Besides, they're hardly the ones causing price increases.  If anything they keep prices down by advocating thrift on the part of healthcare providers. 

The only thing keeping prices up are areas in which the government is involved: tort and regulation.  Tort is easy: doctors get sued, the insurance company has to pay $10 million for it, and it is then forced to pass the expense along to the people paying into that insurance company. 
The solution?  Strict caps across the board (mainly in the amount a lawyer can make from it).  Regulation is also easy: obscene oversights of the pharmaceutical industry makes it impossible to innovate except for the richest companies.  If you can't pay your drug or hardware's way through the FDA, then you can't sell it.  Thus, everybody but the biggest gets shut down and we're left with a monopoly -- or worse, NOBODY can conform to the controls imposed by the governments. 

Reaper.....
" Besides, they're hardly the ones causing price increases. "--Really?
"  If anything they keep prices down by advocating thrift on the part of healthcare providers."--So by costing the health care providers and consumers more......we mandate a layer of "out-sourced" money to provide a windfall for insurance companies.
Yeah, they keep prices down by MANDATING treatment.  Such a fine model, i wonder why it isn't more widely use globally?

What JarrodM said has a lot of good points. I have been a firefighter for 25 years and have worked in a hospital for 13. No matter what your economic status you will get medical service no matter what the situation. I have seen so many people who have no insurance and have no idea they can get Medicare. Others know they can get it, but are simply too lazy to sign up for it or just don't care to sign up because they know they don't have to pay for medical care regardless.

This is why so many hospitals and emergency medical services are losing money, all the people who could have Medicare that simply don't have it, and add to that the fact that the government doesn't reimburse the hospitals and emergency medical services the amount they used to.

The poor don't go to a doctor's office for simple medical issues because they WILL have to pay at some point. The poor use the hospital ER as their primary health care provider instead of a physician, even for something as common as a cold. And we pay for it.

As far as JarrodM's statement about orphanages, I have to disagree. There is no law against irresponsibility and stupidity. Taking a child from someone just because they can't afford them is wrong. There are poor parents who make better parents than rich ones. When health issues are not taken care of, or abuse is present, then the state should look into taking the child, but not because of income level. When we do that, we all become Democrats and Socialists.

Reaper said, "NOBODY can conform to the controls imposed by the governments. " Oh how true. If you are a hospital or emergency medical provider, you have to  hire somebody just to wade through the paperwork to get reimbursed for those who do have Medicare. This in itself adds to the cost, which in turned is passed on to the rest of us.

Any way that you look at it, nearly everybody loses under any system.

ALL you guys.......
I'm talking about comprehensive health care, not emergency room treatment........

But david what you don't understand is that it is all interrelated. If a hospital is lossing money in one area, they are going to have to raise the cost of service in all areas.

I can tell you where you are hung up on this issue David, and that is that you are under the assumption that Health care is right. I hate to tell you but it is not. It is a service, just like any other industry. A person does not have a right to transportation, nor a right to a roof over their head.

Now before you start blasting me, this does not mean that we should not take steps to try and make sure that it is avaliable to everyone, but you can not just give it away for free. I'm sorry in this world people have to work for the things that they want. It is called the pursuit of happines.

If you have not done so, you should really go and look up some web sites that detail the horror stories of socialized medican all over the world. The reason that a lot of countries are still using that system, is because they are stuck now. It is a road that once you go down, you can't backup from.

"If you have not done so, you should really go and look up some web sites that detail the horror stories of socialized medican all over the world. The reason that a lot of countries are still using that system, is because they are stuck now. It is a road that once you go down, you can't backup from."

Having many friends and relatives in Germany........not ONE of them advocates the American system, in fact they ALL laugh at it and wonder how we can be so stupid

Is it a right for companies to make a profit could just as easily be asked.

@WadeHM

   I'm not saying that we just round up all of the children from poor families. Look I think that it is great for anyone to have a family. But lets define some real world responsibility. First off the greatest responsibility anyone can ever have is the care for another human life. So it stands to reason that before a person decides to have a family they should make sure that they are in a position to care for this life that they are bringing into the world. I'm sorry but if you are living in the projects collecting welfare, it is absolutely irresponsible to bring a child into this world.

The problem is that these people do not think twice about it, because they know that the Government and the tax payers are going to take care of that child, and through that care, they are also going to be taken care of.  I don't like the idea of separating a child from their family, but look enough is enough. You have to draw a line, and when that line is crossed something has to be done. Their has to be consequences for making poor decisions, not free money.

I have no problem with removing a child from a poor situation (including a parent who is in no position to properly care for this child). This does not mean that the parent should not have contact with the child, and should not be able to work to get the child back. But if the expectation is that we are going to have to pay for the care of these children because they are innocent and did not put them selves in this situation, then I say we remove them from the situation and take care of them.

I'm 34 years old, been married for 10 years and don't have kids because my life is not in a position to have kids yet. I want to make sure that I can dedicate my self to taking care of this child. Dare I say it, that having a child is not a RIGHT it is a RESPONSIBILITY that should not be taken lightly.

is it right for companies to make a profit, UM yes, that is why they are companies. Again we are never going to agree on this because your have the premiss that Health Care is a RIGHT.  I say if health care is a right, then I say the Government should provide everyone with a home, a job, transportation....Oh wait that was already tried in Russia, and we all know how well that worked out.

 Look David the fact of the matter is that when you turn over your rights to include your medical care too one single source be it Government or 1 Corrportation, you are now stuck. If this entity decides that it is in the best intreast of the whole polulation that they stop carring for elderly patients because heck they are just old, there would be no way to stop it. You laugh I know you are laughing at this right now.

But I have read stories where a patent was refussed care for a broken leg, because he was a smoker. They would not treat him untill he quit smoking. This is the direction that we are heading if we allow the Government to take over.

I'm glad that your family enjoys their health coverage. I'm sure in all countries that have Socialized medican that their are a lot of people that find it just fantastic. But I know for a fact, that their are a lot of people that hate it and have had to pay the price because of it.

These people do not seem to agree with you david.

angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html

'The problem is that these people do not think twice about it, because they know that the Government and the tax payers are going to take care of that child, and through that care, they are also going to be taken care of. "

--same as starting starting expensive wars.......republicans have no problem with wasting taxpayers money foolishly, while the less fortunate have little real health care, unless they buy in to this sham health insurance industry.

David,

   That is the Governments job, that is it's main purpose is to provide a national defense. I find it so hard to believe that you where in the Military before and you have such a lack of understanding.

You and many of the liberals have falling right into the left wing nut jobs, and the media's trap. The have so soundly convinced you, that this war in Iraq is unjust, and illegal. let me break it down for you.

1. Saddam Hussein was in violation of 11 UN mandates. These Mandates where for the complete and unfettered inspections of his WMD weapon sites. Every time the inspectors where just about to find something he would kick them out the country.

2. America was attack un-provoked. Not only was she attacked, it was the Civilian population that was attacked. Say what you want about Imperial Japan, at least they attacked the military. No these bastereds attacked civilians.

3. Saddam Hussein was leading the world on that he had weapons of Mass destruction. Every one in Congress saw the same Intel that Bush saw on this, and that is why they voted to OK the war.

4. I will give you that the planners did not do a very good job of planning the aftermath of the war after removing Saddam from power. This did allow the Terrorist to come in and establish them selves.

5. When Bush went on the Aircraft Carrier and Said that the Major fighting was over. He was talking about the war against Saddam’s Iraq. What followed after that was helping protect Iraq from the Terrorists organizations, and the internal warring organizations from taking power.

See the difference between you and me, is that I understand the purpose of the Government that I have spent all of my adult life serving, and that I have fought in two conflicts to help protect. It's major role is to provide Protection from enemies so that the people of this country can continue to pursue happiness and enjoy freedom. You view this Government as a subjugator, that is designed to take from one group, and give to another group, and tell us how to live. I'm sorry we broke those chains when we told England that we would not longer beholden to a Monarchy.
 
Everyone in this country has the ability to get healthcare, they just have to work for it. This is where that whole pursuit of happiness comes into play. If it makes you happy to have health care, then go out and pursue it.

Right.....National defense,
.......NO ONE in Iraq attacked or was getting ready to attack the USA.
So we embarked on a half ass'd plan to invade......

"I am very certain that this military engagement will not be very difficult."
-John McCain  September 12, 2002

with the support of McCain, it has turn'd into a COSTLY failure (so much for judgment here)

But getting back to the discussion, no one yet has shown how paying lots of money to an insurance corporation will actually suit the needs of the American people.

David, I'm trying to ween myself off of these internet arguments, but I've got to ask...how are insurance companies burdening the system?  If they didn't exist, our entire health care system would collapse; people wouldn't be able to pay for anything but the cheapest prescriptions, any doctor who lost a lawsuit would be completely and soundly ruined, and everything would grind to a halt. 

One could make the argument that health care might be cheaper if insurance companies weren't enabling people to peruse the ever-costlier system, but again -- it is my belief that the government is at fault for rising health care costs in the first place, not insurance companies.

Yes David they have, it has been explained for you. You have convinced your self that Government ran health care is going to be better, and you ignore everyone elses facts. Let's try this again.

1. There will be no compatition, every one will be stuck with what ever price the Government sets. This will be establish with the ammount of money the steal opps I mean take in taxes to pay for this. 1.5 Trillion according to Barack. Also since there is no compatition, there is no incentive to try and keep cost down. I work for a local Government when I'm not out chassing fires, trust me I have seeing the inificient employees of Government hard at work. Cost go up, you just hit the tax payers for more money.

2. Government control. This means that if they decide that they don't want people to smoke, they will just refuse to treat smokers. Think this will not happen, it is already happening in other countries with this system.

3. There will not be the incentive for people to go into the field of medician. Why work so hard to get into a field that pays so little. Hospitals will be forced into a price structure, no longer able to set prices based on operational cost. This means lower wages for doctors this means less doctors, and less quality of doctors.

So tell me David, what has you so convinced that your health care is going to be so much better under socialized medican. Fell free to give TOE a call for some back up, I sure miss her and her wild views.

WoW!  where do you guys come up with this rubbish
1.  I think you mean  "No competition" .....uuuuuh, hospitals shouldn't compete, they should serve the needs of the public.
2.  Perhaps smokers would have to pay a higher tax, just as they should pay higher insurance rates.
3.  No incentive.......seriously, that's bullshit.

As a former paratrooper, i am quite comfprtable with the odds, thankyou.

Smokers already pay a higher tax every time they purchase their product. Also it would not be an issue if they should be treated if they paid for their own health insurance. Hence they would have to shop around to find an insurance carrier that was willing to give them insurance to cover any related smoking illnesses. See David that is the advantage of having many options, you have options.

And yes David it has been proven that Government ran programs takes away the incentive to productivity, and slows down progress. Maybe it is the root of all evil, but money also is a great motivator. If I showed you how investing into some sort of research was going to make you rich would you do it? If their is not benefit for making new drugs, because their is no money in it, because the government is just going to take it, and hand it out to everyone, then their is no motivation to invent new drugs, or new treatments.

From one Paratrooper to another. Letting the Government run health care is like a cherry running with the wind all the way into the ground, because he did not want to have to hump it to the Turn-in-point.  It sounds like a great idea untill you make it back to ground, and burn into the stands or what ever vehicle the medics decided to park right there.

David you sound like a resonable person, why would you rather not work for it, then have it given to you?

David,

Hospitals shouldn't compete? If there is no competition, there is no incentive to provide continually better care, better procedures, and better doctors. Because of competition the hospital I work in constantly looks for ways to improve its services to the public.

If smokers should have to pay higher taxes so should alcoholics and anyone else who does anything that causes harm to their health that is perfectly legal in the eyes of the government.

No incentive is not BS. Anytime you take away from anything and level the playing field, there is no incentive for increasing the quality of the product.

As we know, once the government gets involved with regulating something, just complying with those regulations increases the costs. The medical field innovates for two reasons, 1. To provide a better product and service to the customer to improve their health and increase their lifespan, 2. To provide a better product than the competition so that the customer will use their product.

Incentives and competition provides better quality of care than any the government can give. If you think that the government can do a better job, just look at the VA Hospital horror stories and how our vets are treated. This is how we would be treated.

No, your arguments are bullshit.

Wow, that is much easier than sound, well reasoned arguments. 

Anyways, hospitals do need to compete or else...everything we said would happen would happen.  Without competition -- or better stated as the pursuit of profits -- there is no incentive to improve or even maintain current levels of service.  You get paid whether you visit your patient once a day or 10 times a day, so why do the latter? 

Why do you think the US steel industry fell decades behind under the protection of steel tariffs?  There was no incentive to improve, so they didn't.  Same thing here.  And you'd better have some substantial evidence when you suggest that the health care industry is somehow different, because I'll tell you right now that I don't buy it. 

Well, I've arrived at work. I'll ask some of the doctors their opinions on the matter and post what THEY have to say later today.

".........Same thing here.  And you'd better have some substantial evidence when you suggest that the health care industry is somehow different"

Some things shouldn't even be an industry, such as health care and the military, just to name 2.

So, in that sense, NO, profit shouldn't figure in to the equation.  Profit has been add'd to the equation at the expense of the public, who demand a service, not motivation for profit.  This may seem a foreign concept to most republicans, but to many Americans they are wondering about this insane idea of health care for profit.  It(health care )is NOT a product, it IS a service that every citizen, rich or poor must have. 
And Jarrod, i have already earned it.

Wade, be sure to ask only republican doctors, lol!

David David Daivd, where did the DI go wrong with you my man.

  Again you state that Health care is a right, and it is not. It is most definitely a service, a service that should be earned, and provided by industry, not government. I could make the case that Government should provide everything, if I just thought of everything as a right.

 Look maybe the Government should get into the business of paying Life Insurance. I mean no ones family should go with out. How is it fair that my kids should have to depend on just my wife, and her money if I die? Sounds to me like I should have a right to life insurance, weather I can afford it or not.

  David, it is a fact that in order for something to be provided it has to be produced. The most efficient, and cost effective way to produce said item, or service is in a competitive environment. When there is competition, it forces to opposing suppliers to 1. Provide a better service, and 2. provide it cheaper.
  Let me know what part of the Constitution, or the Bill of rights covers the right to free health care. Because you know what I will shut up right now and vote for Barack. if it was in there, but it is not. In fact speaking about Barack and our right granted to us by the documents I have mentioned, he has already tried to take the 2nd Amendment away from his home state, how long do you think it will be before he tries that little trick on the nation.
 
Hey David, if you get your way, I have the perfect way that Barack can make sure everyone conforms. Before they are able to get health care, they must agree to an inspection of their homes so that the police can confiscate any weapons that might be present in them. Because that would help reduce the cost of health care, by reducing the number of weapons home owners have to defend them selves. So the next time they get robbed, they will either 1. be killed (no added cost to health care there), 2. Just let the robber take what they want (Nope nothing added to the cost their). Plus that would make sure that when Barack decided to tear up the constitution, that the people could not stand in his way.
If you feel that strongly about this, and I would never stand in the way from a person following their dreams, why don’t you move to another Country. I mean if it is that bad here.
 
Again I go back to the whole concept of if you want health care go out and earn it, you want something go out and earn it, don’t demand it, because it is not a right, your not entitled to it.
 
LOL I just thought of something. Basically your saying that a person should be entitled to health care. So what if he goes into the Doctors office, and the Doctor refuses to treat him. Does he call the Health Care police to come and hold this Doctor down till he treats the guy? Better yet, I feel that I’m entitled to make sure that my truck is always working perfect, I think that Mechanics should be controlled by the Government to make sure that everyone vehicles are running efficiently. I mean this would help make sure everyone had transportation to get to their jobs. It would help lower the cost of fuel, because a vehicle with Mechanical issues is not as efficient. If I you don’t have to pay for your health care, then I should not have to pay for my truck care. Sounds fair and even to me.
 

"David David Daivd, where did the DI go wrong with you my man."
i was highly thought of by my DI(Sgt. Hanks).....because, an infantry man has to think, lol!

" Again you state that Health care is a right...."
- it is a service for the the common good of the nation.  But this gets closer to my original question.......why is it everything must be privatized to make a profit?  Is the constitution and our government here simply to provide a frame work for business interests to thrive, or is it to provide for the people?
The late, great Reagan did sooooo much to further the cause of privatization, but i am only questioning the application of that idea into areas it should not be applied.
Doctor's refusing treatment?  That's crazy!  Why would a doctor refuse treatment to a patient........i thought they were supposed to treat all?
It has to do with ethics, which seems to be lacking in many business operations, in their dutiful pursuit of profits(.......so it will maybe trickle-down on me?--I doubt it!)

Because if we just decide that the Government should have the control, then we have changed from a democracy to ... I don't know Communism, or an Authoritative nation. Look no one should have that much power. You start allowing the Government to decide every little aspect of your life, you have just given Government power over you.

If a person is this concerned about their health care, they should then take responsibility for it. It is insane to just accept, or believe that the Government is going to worry about these things for you.

I do like how you are not responding to any of the Direct Statements. How would socializing health care improve it? That is the question I propose to you David. I look forward to reading your response when I get home from work.

Here is another quick one for you David, I sure do hope that one of these Annologies will sink in for you. How about if we just take the media and make it ran by the Government. I mean There are so many conflicting views on everything, and there should not be all of this confussion. I mean I have a right to the facts, and should not be clouded with all of this opinion. Why does the news need to be commercialized?

Sure sounds good on the surface. I mean you have a Government entity, that only allows the Truth to come out, that only allows Reports that are based in fact, that would be awsome. I mean there would be nothing left to argue about.

You ever wonder why Children in Iraq think such awful things about American's. Such as we eat babies, and things like that. Because the people of Iraq only had one source of information.

with Scott McClellan's news that the present administration feeds talking points to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh......it seems as if we are heading toward a nazi like news apparatus already.
Iraqi kids don't like American soldiers in their country is a bit like American kids not liking Red coats in their own, any many grew up just to shoot a few, huh?
My read of the constitution doesn't exactly line up with yours, i guess.  Remember, "We the people....." or is it "We the corporate entities"?

scenes from an Iraqi childhood?
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/91617
No, we have no business there unless our business is to further the profits of some.......and the money saved could be put to better use here in the USA, starting with proper health care for our VETERANS.

David said, "with Scott McClellan's news that the present administration feeds talking points to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh......it seems as if we are heading toward a nazi like news apparatus already."

They do this because they know that Fox won't spin what they say like the other MSM broadcasts do, because all the others lean left and want Obama elected.

"why is it everything must be privatized to make a profit?" Because everything that the government runs, runs into the red. Profits in healthcare is good because that leaves them money to work with to improve their services. Without profit, no matter the service or the product, there is no way to improve service. Let me put it this way, if my fire department ran in the red every year, there would be no money beyond annual operating expenses (the budget) to purchase new equipment, hire new firefighters, expand training. The goal is not to spend ALL that annual budget (taxpayer money), but have some left over for emergencies that arise (like a fire truck out of warranty breaking down) and have some left over so that needed equipment can be replaced as it wears out, new technologies can be purchased, the service can be improved, and show the taxpayer that we are using their money in a responsible manner, and so that we don't have to ask the taxpayer for a tax hike when we run into the red.

Profit ensures that there is money left for innovation, and for emergencies that are not covered by insurance or expired warranties, etc.

"....... they know that Fox won't spin what they say......"--Seriously
A few months ago(i watch fox daily), Obama's name was referred to as Barrack Husein Obama constantly by most of the news readers on Fox.....
a subtle smear to identify him as a jihadist. 
Wade, should the military also be privatized to ensure the service can be improved in a responsible manner?  WoW!  we could hire them out when not need'd to bring in extra tax money!  What a GREAT idea!(not)

"Wade, should the military also be privatized to ensure the service can be improved in a responsible manner?  WoW!  we could hire them out when not need'd to bring in extra tax money!  What a GREAT idea!(not)"

No, that's a function of the government. Read the above comments more carefully. We're not suggesting that every single service be moved to the private sector, but if it doesn't need to be socialized, then leave it as private. Our government is so fiscally irresponsible, how could anyone trust them with anything? I've found elementary kids managing their piggy bank better than what the government does with its money.

So while government healthcare may sound good, it has many pitfalls and just ends up with the government getting more control over our personal lives.

If you don't like Fox why to you watch it everyday?

Privatize the military? It probably would improve in some ways and the taxpayer wouldn't be burdened with outrageous prices that that military pays just because it is a government entity. Just like firefighting equipment, the cost automatically goes up because it is being sold to a government entity. Companies rip off the government daily and the government doesn't blink an eye. So the military at least would be run more efficiently financially because corporations look at costs and if someone is ripping them off, they just go to another vendor. The government meanwhile is locked in and doesn't really care that they pay thousands of dollars to ship two washers from one military base to another, until John Q. Public catches them paying these outrageous prices.

David your reaching now,

You know the funny thing is we are almost 40 post into this, and you have yet to establish your points on why Socialized health care is better. Your whole argument hinges on that you believe it is an entitlement. Common David, I really don't believe that you drink the Kool-Aid, I know that you are better at making an argument then this.

McClellan has already admitted to having lied about O'Reilly being fed talking points, and he explicitly stated in this admission that he didn't want to specify anybody, which means we don't know who got them and we don't know whether they used them.  Besides, you're awful willing to believe him, aren't you?  I guess you're using up all your cynicism on us so there's none left for him, eh?

And I've seen...pretty much everybody using his middle name be they from the left, middle or right.  Back to the topic...

It doesn't matter whether health care is a guaranteed right or not (it isn't); the question is how to deploy it so it meets the needs of as many people in as efficient a manner as possible.  Public health care simply won't meet everybody's needs.  For chrissake, have you heard the horror stories about Canadians having to come to the US to have their surgeries, both because of queues and quality?  Or did you hear them before you ran out of cynicism?

Eh, second paragraph is referring to Obama.  Proofreading is fun!

But Chris, this is the wave if the future.......privatized military, aaah, blackwater comes to mind.  But back to socialized medicine.
Again....there are Hospitals, there are patients. Add to the mix.......insurance companies.  Is it necessary(insurance companies?)
We can:
1.  Allow private, profit motivated companies to tell your doctor what level of treatment you'll receive.  Oh, the CEO flys around in a corporate jet!
2.  The profit they siphon off comes from the consumer, which pays for this largess that seems to be costly and unnecessary....this difference could be funneled to the Doctor's, hospitals, and patients......

"...let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream."  Amos5:24

The main reason why health costs are so outrageous is that right now NOTHING is regulating them.  Think about it: the government is doing very, very little to control costs, and the market doesn't regulate prices because few people have any idea what healthcare costs.

If you have insurance, like most Americans do, you more or less go to whoever you want for services and have no idea how much it costs.  If you knew using a pharmacy three blocks from yours could save you 50$ a month on your most expensive script would you change pharmacies?  You might if your plan includes a co-pay, but most people never bother to check because they don't worry about cost.  Your insurance covers what you need, no matter how much it costs.

A great example of this is that University of Pittsburgh Medical Centers owns well over half the hospitals in Pittsburgh.  A standard emergency room visit at UPMC Oakland will run you 300$.  Two miles away at UPMC Shadyside the exact same visit with the exact same services costs 600$.  The market doesn't regulate prices because most people use whatever hospital is closest to where they are and will never see the bill.  It's the same with everyday things like blood tests- since the cost is invisible providers can charge whatever they want and no one will notice.  Even people without insurance don't tend to check prices because they feel like shopping around for the lowest cost is somehow taboo.  Personally, if I know I've got something silly like a sinus infection and I know I'm going to get the same script from any doctor, I'll go to the local health clinic because I'm a broke college student and want to save 10$ on my co-pay  rather than go to my usual private practice.  

Essentially both candidates are proposing that the system be somehow regulated.  McCain wants to let the markets regulate and Obama wants the government to regulate.  

Jarrod.....
Explain this Kool-aid shit.........is it like the electric kool-aid acid test?
42 posts into this thing, ad my original question has not been answered:
How can an addition layer be added to the health care system without adding an additional cost to the patient? 

Wade i have to watch Fox when i go to check on my old former nazi mom who is now a republican.  Hope abounds, she will probably be around for the next election, but my brother and i will cancel her vote out.

Reaper...."Public health care simply won't meet everybody's needs"
Certainly not the CEO's of insurance companies.  Again, i see NO mass movement in Europe(they are democratic countries aren't they?)
to mirror our system which adds and ADDITIONAL layer for the patient to pay for.

Think about it this way, David:

A CEO is paid (albeit too much) to oversee the vast corporation, yeah?  How would that be any different from the person the government would pay to oversee the vast reaches of the state run healthcare system?  I bet they'd get paid an awful lot.

The company uses (at least some of) its profits to generate innovation.  How would that be any different from the government funding research and innovation?

The company is responsible to its shareholders, which is the same idea as the government being responsible to its own shareholders- the taxpayers.

If anything  you would end up paying for useless things like endless government inspections of practices to make sure they were up to government standards and even more levels of go-betweens for the government.  Patients would still need some sort of an approval system for treatment to ensure doctors weren't ordering unnecessary treatments.  Anyone who has ever had a government job will tell you that getting even the littlest thing done or approved is a nightmare.  

At least a private healthcare system would be motivated by competition.  A socialized health system wouldn't be motivated by anything because we'd all have no choice but to die or use its services.  Some people (whether you personally believe in it or not) have had great success with private cancer treatments that focus on diet and nutrition as opposed to drugs, something the government would probably never have spent research dollars on.  That's the kind of good the private market can do.  In a socialized system treatments like that wouldn't exist because they'd be practicing non-sanctioned treatment.

Jarrod:
1. Saddam Hussein was in violation of 11 UN mandates. These Mandates where for the complete and unfettered inspections of his WMD weapon sites. Every time the inspectors where just about to find something he would kick them out the country.
I would like to see some evidence explaining this claim.  Meanwhile, here are some links concerning weapons inspectors and their own specific thoughts on the issues: 
 

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0305-01.htm 

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm

 
2. America was attack un-provoked. Not only was she attacked, it was the Civilian population that was attacked. Say what you want about Imperial Japan, at least they attacked the military. No these bastereds attacked civilians.
Of all the supposed hijackers, there was not one Iraqi.  Iraq is a country in the middle-east.  All middle-eastern countries are different.  PLEASE explain yourself regarding this comment that you made.
3. Saddam Hussein was leading the world on that he had weapons of Mass destruction. Every one in Congress saw the same Intel that Bush saw on this, and that is why they voted to OK the war.
Please provide evidence on your first point.  Also, keep in mind that Pakistan, Israel, and the US (among others) really do have WMD's.  The absolute truth is that these countries kill millions more innocent people than Saddam ever did.  That is a fact. You need to think about that when you're convincing yourself of America's loving and honorable motives.  Also, not every congressperson voted for the war.
4. I will give you that the planners did not do a very good job of planning the aftermath of the war after removing Saddam from power. This did allow the Terrorist to come in and establish them selves.
I agree.  We should have a discussion on why the "planners" didn't have a plan.  I would argue that it's quite obvious that they did have a plan.  You don't invade and occupy other countries under multiple false pretenses without a very good idea of what is going to happen.
5. When Bush went on the Aircraft Carrier and Said that the Major fighting was over. He was talking about the war against Saddam’s Iraq. What followed after that was helping protect Iraq from the Terrorists organizations, and the internal warring organizations from taking power.
This is pure desperation.  Do you know what I'm saying?  I just can't understand this dire need to defend and follow somebody who does nothing but act against your interests.  Why are you still supporting this idiocy?  David Walters is intelligent, he is clearly out for the good of the people, yet you choose to argue against him and defend a group of people that prove time and again that you are only important when you can be used for their interests. Insanity.

Cutie(like that name)......
".......How would that be any different from the person the government would pay to oversee the vast reaches of the state run healthcare system?  I bet they'd get paid an awful lot."

We would have recourse to lower an excessive salary thru legislation, huh?

"The company uses (at least some of) its profits to generate innovation."

What kind of innovations are we talking about?  It's not like an insurance company is  actually producing anything(except profit)......return the profit to the people and outta the pockets of the CEO's.

I still don't see what kind of competition is going to help out here, perhaps some, but i just don't see how it will amount to much.

But overall, it was a well written article you put out today.....i have enjoy'd sparring with all these guys.

My first post addressed your question, Dave: government control wouldn't eliminate insurance companies; it would just replace them with an inane bureaucracy documenting every aspect of every hospital visit.  The people running this bureaucracy would be paid *VASTLY* more than your jet-flying CEO (not per capita, but as a collective), and they wouldn't be answerable to ANYBODY.  If an insurance company screws up, they answer to both the government and the free market.  If the government screws up, they put more money into the system and call it fixed.  Then our officials will win campaigns on platforms of health care reform.  They'll establish regulatory commission after regulatory commission which will add bureaucracy after bureaucracy full of well paid paper pushers who will never have any hope of being downsized. 

In short, the private sector will easily win in the cost department, even from the get-go.  The disparity between the two will only grow with time.  Like I said, only a retard could possibly believe otherwise.

 David,

I really hate when people loosely use NAZI all the time. My German mother and her parents escaped Nazi Germany because they were assisting Jews out of Germany to escape the death camps. To refer to any party as Nazis waters down what the Nazis were all about and really over exaggerates, or shows, your contempt for those who don't follow YOUR views lockstep. And it is a real insult to your mother. I would never call my mother that, even if she didn't see my way.

pleasehelp, I hate to even answer you in an article about health care, but have a read:
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71076