I am still amazed at the debate in congres about the health care system. Living in a country where this has been taken care of since the '60, I can't understand the enormous amount of resistance against these basic health care plans.
On the news here (Holland) they told us that this debate has been going on since Teddy Roosevelt. Is this true?? And if it is true, why can't congres get this bill to pass?
In short: I find it truly amazing that the US has more than 45 million uninsured people, but the US congres doens't give the other bills the time of day. As a result nothing happens and this soap continues. Why is this? Is it really because both parties only accept their plan? I heard many causes for public protest on this forum, but it is awefully quiet regarding something so profound!

No, some of us are pretty pissed that there is so much resistance to it.

It is called "lobbyist" democracy: The big insurance companies will lose money, maybe even big time, and of cause, they move heaven and earth so this should not happen. Nothing better to have than a monopoly where you make the rules and decide who is included/excluded etc. to keep profits maxed...

Rattler

Before WWII health was a matter between you & your Doctor, perhaps with some insurance involved. During WWII Companies began offering insurance as a fringe benifit, due to wage controls(Govt interference with the market economy). As a result people now expect someone to provide them with insurance/health coverage, if not thier Company, then the Nanny State.

But doesn't the state have a duty to protect their citizen's? Isn't that why they pay for the armed forces too? Why is it looking after their citizen's basic health care needs so much different? And I am not talking about special medical things that cost billions! Just the rudimentary basic, so that someone doesn't go bankrupt when he has to spend a night in a hospital. Or worse; hospitals that refuse aid, because no one will pick up the bill.

Ted, logic left this argument a long long time ago.

Originally Posted by Ted

But doesn't the state have a duty to protect their citizen's? Isn't that why they pay for the armed forces too? Why is it looking after their citizen's basic health care needs so much different? And I am not talking about special medical things that cost billions! Just the rudimentary basic, so that someone doesn't go bankrupt when he has to spend a night in a hospital. Or worse; hospitals that refuse aid, because no one will pick up the bill.

Why not give everyone a house, shelter is a basic need. How about a car so they can get to work. Untill recently health care wasn't something that was considered to be a basic service of govt, & to many of us it still isn't. And, yes, they are talking special medical things that will cost Trillions & end up being rationed.

Originally Posted by Ted

But doesn't the state have a duty to protect their citizen's? Isn't that why they pay for the armed forces too? Why is it looking after their citizen's basic health care needs so much different? And I am not talking about special medical things that cost billions! Just the rudimentary basic, so that someone doesn't go bankrupt when he has to spend a night in a hospital. Or worse; hospitals that refuse aid, because no one will pick up the bill.

In away you could say the State Governments might have that duty, but not the Federal Government.

The founding fathers never intended the US Federal Government to have "control" or influence over the daily lives of its citizens. So every time the Federal Government does anything to "take over" or administer anything for citizens it is a major point of contention. No matter how much it might benefit the citizens, it is a matter of the Federal Government entering areas it was not given explicit approval by it's citizens to do. The fear the "Government" is growing to big and controlling.

This is what makes health care or any other issue have so many different views.

The US Federal Government as originally constituted did not have a mandate or duty to protect it citizens directly . It was to coordinate a United defense of the 13 Colonies. Governing and protecting the populous belonged to the original colonies that became the original states. (For Europeans they should consider the roll of the European Union to its member governments as roughly equivalent to the roll of the US Federal Governments to its states.)

While a National health care system does makes sense, who administers it and how brings up a lot of issues. People might not be able to choose their doctors, not a big deal to those currently without insurance or maybe in HMO but for people who pick their Dr's, it is defiantly a big deal.

Of course cost and who pays and how much is a big scary question. We all know it will get paid until it goes broke. With a government administered Postal System going broke, it makes you wonder if the government is capable of administering a health care system.

Problems with Medicare, Medicaid, and VA Healthcare do not instill confidence.

Time to go abroad and learn from systems that are working.

In truth if the US goes abroad to study healthcare it will have to study every country since healthcare in the European Union is not universal.

If you wish to read how a particular country handles healthcare and insurance this is a good impartial link.

http://xnet.kp.org/kpinternational/2...omparisons.pdf

What do European health care models offer the U.S. health reform debate?

Many U.S. policymakers believe that most European countries have achieved universal coverage by using a financing and care delivery system similar to that used by Canada or the United Kingdom. In truth, no European country uses the same system as Canada or the UK, and some European systems use the exact opposite approach: a market-based model involving both competing private health insurance plans and competing private-sector providers of care. Some European countries use a mixed model, combining both private plans and government-based social insurance models. Each European nation has evolved its own pathway for universal coverage. We need to study carefully the array of alternatives embedded in these approaches. The attached chart outlines some of the approaches used in Europe to finance care and achieve universal coverage.

quoted from above link.