[darren]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Macsporan', 'I') think not, nor am I asking a lot of modern medicine. In the US today a third of the population will get cancer and die of it or its complications. Heart attack and stroke will get most of the rest. Diabetes and other degenerative diseases will clean up the survivors.

This was unhead of one hundred years ago. Cancer was very rare, as were all these complaints. These are lifestyle diseases in pandemic proportions. There are many today who believe that these are essentially a deficency disease exacerbated by the toxic chemical environment that people live in these days.

Nor has there ever been a study that has conclusively proved that any of the treatments for cancer actually cured anyone. It may well be that the higher survival rate for cancer sufferers, if that is indeed the case, has been caused by alternative medicine of which improved diet is a pillar.

...

This is a topic of great interest to me and which I happen to have studied at some depth. My ideas are based on solid fact, not New Age romanticism.

In fact I predict that providing there are no outbreaks of pandemic disease such as the Plague or Typhus, basic sanitation is observed and that we avoid creating a half-starved and oppressed peasantry, that PO people, living entirely on organic food, will enjoy better health and longer lives than people today.

[MarkR]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think not, nor am I asking a lot of modern medicine. In the US today a third of the population will get cancer and die of it or its complications. Heart attack and stroke will get most of the rest. Diabetes and other degenerative diseases will clean up the survivors.

[darren]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MarkR', '
')There are multiple reasons why cancer was not as commonly diagnosed in the 19th century.....

[Prince]

Okay, I'm looking more for the obvious "means that everyone gets health insurance."

I mean, what does it mean to our country, quality of life, future taxes, and health industry?

I see this issue being one of the top issues in the '08 campaign. Obama mentioned it today as a major area of concern. Other Democrats are following suit. I really hope the republicans get off their neo-con ways and go back to fundamentals in '08, else we are going to be hurting really bad.

The medical industry in the US is an absolute joke, run entirely by extortionists that pander to the government via the AMA. You know there is no way in hell doctors will take a pay cut, so universal healthcare will almost definitely (in my mind) imply higher costs with lower quality of service. I'm not against socialized/universal healthcare, but there is too much greed and pandering in this country to make it viable. For the healthier crowd, it will merely imply higher taxes and more twisting of the tit. Also, what about the dirtbag illegals? We already see that California is pushing to get all kids "free" healthcare, legal or not.

With the problems we face with regards to our national debt, energy, and class warfare, what will happen if this universal system is implemented? There are some bright minds here. I'd love to hear some hypotheses on the subject.

[smallpoxgirl]

I too have mixed feelings about universal healthcare.

Consider. Right now, Canada's government pays about 2/3 as much per taxpayer as the US government does for healthcare. For that 2/3 as much they get universal coverage, and the life expectancy in Canada is 2 years longer than in the US.

That being said, the US is not Canada. In the US, I greatly fear that what it would mean is Haliburton Healthcare. Hundreds of billions of dollars in graft and no health.

[gnm]

And wealthy Canadians come over the border and pay for their own so they can have a surgery which was deemed "unnecessary" done or have their pick of physicians or just to avoid a really long wait.



You know, the government has done so well with all the money and control we've given it and all the government programs work so well why not let them handle healthcare too?

/sarcasm

-G

[gego]

The Soviet Union provided health care also, if you could in fact call it that.

I think the biggest problem with US health care is insurance, which is really a form of prepaid service contract. Can you imagine if medical insurance were made illegal? Suddenly there would not be this funding of the medical and drug establishment and people would no longer be willing to pay outrageous prices, nor would they seek medical help that was not necessary. Prices would drop like a rock.

The second thing that would help improve medicine in the US would be to outlaw the FDA and related laws, and outlaw all state licensing of medical professionals. This would allow competition to return to the industry and eliminate the state protection of the medical establishment.

Yea, I know you think that the government protects you with all these laws, but it just really protects the medical establishment, and yea, I know you think you need insurance, but you could pay for the lower cost directly a lot easier than you could pay your insurance premiums. Plus you would have an incentive to find ways to stay in good health.

Of course most of this does not matter, cause once the industrial system collapses, there goes the medical system also. No electricity means no expensive hospitals, no big time drug manufacture, and much more primitive treatments.

[smallpoxgirl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gnm', 'A')nd wealthy Canadians come over the border and pay for their own so they can have a surgery which was deemed "unnecessary" done or have their pick of physicians or just to avoid a really long wait.

[DesertBear2]

The worst possible health care system would be for the politicians to hook up the current rogue's gallery of profit driven health care providers to the US govt tax revenues.

We can see what could happen with the example of this last Prescription Drug Bill. The big pharma folks want to recruit millions of new prescription drug users and then charge it all to the US taxpayer. The goal is to have 80 million baby boomers taking 10 to 12 ongoing prescriptions for the rest of their life and have the younger workers pay for it to the tune of 100s of billions USD. And no volume discounts on drugs as the bill was written.

Another question comes up here- are we getting way over prescribed on the prescription drugs? And is it right for the big pharma organizations to run deceptive multi-billion dollar marketing campaigns to ramp up drug sales at any cost? And are they messing around with the drug testing to come up with the answers that they need to achieve big profits from drug products?

Has anybody been to the doctor's office recently? You will see older people coming in with garbage bags full of empty pill bottles- many are on 10 or more ongoing prescriptions. And you will see a constant flow of drug sales reps who are dominating the life of the medical offices. At one visit last year, I was horrified to see an angry domineering drug salesman giving my doctor a finger wagging lecture while my doctor looked shame-faced and stared at the floor.

[Prince]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DesertBear2', 'H')as anybody been to the doctor's office recently? You will see older people coming in with garbage bags full of empty pill bottles- many are on 10 or more ongoing prescriptions. And you will see a constant flow of drug sales reps who are dominating the life of the medical offices. At one visit last year, I was horrified to see an angry domineering drug salesman giving my doctor a finger wagging lecture while my doctor looked shame-faced and stared at the floor.

[JoeW]

in the spirit of "equal opportunity," i can see where universal health care for minors makes sense.

perhaps rather than universal healthcare, the united states needs "minimum healthcare". by that, i mean that every american citizen would have the choice of buying into health insurance that is brokered by the federal government. the coverage would be bare minimum and premiums would reflect that. premiums could be payroll-deducted, so irresponsible workers wouldn't have to worry about sending out the payments.

people who already have wouldn't have to buy into the government-brokered insurance.
the government would be responsible to collect premiums and broker the best deal possible. if you are aiming to insure millions of people, there would probably be some decent competition to get that contract.

[gnm]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', ' ') Pancreatic cancer has a 5 year survival rate of less than 1 percent.

[gego]

Universal health care is the delusion that there is a free lunch.

Given human nature the politicians will always pander to this delusion.

[Novus]

Cuba has universal health care and it functions on about 1/20th of the cost of the US system and provides the same life expectancy. You know the old adage an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The American health care system is not a penny for prevention and billions for cures. Spending a few dollars on the poor so they have the very basic of health care can add decades to their lives while spending millions on cancer patients and heart transplants rarely adds more than six months of life to a rich man.

If a man falls into the Niagara river on the Canadian side onlookers will immeadiately jump in and pull him to safety. If a man falls into the Niagara river on the American side no one will help him for that is American way that individuals must learn to sink or swim on their own. However, at the last second before the man goes over the falls the Americans will call in a helicopter at great expense to save the man. If Americans don't start doing things the Canadian way come post peak there will not be any fuel for that helicopter resulting in a lot of needlessly dead Americans.

[gampy]

Universal healthcare means I won't be bankrupt if I go to hospital for anything more than stitches, or a broken arm.

The way I see it, at least in the US, is that the debate is about getting insurance for everyone. Instead of healthcare. I have not seen anything about doing away with the insurance part, and just have the doctors and hospitals bill the government directly...which is what happens in Canada. I suppose that Canadians of average means have little "choice" in their healthcare, but at least it's available.

Cut out the middle man, and you have less costs. Although the health insurance industry will be out of work. Boo hoo.

I can't see "healthcare for everyone" until they completely socialize medicine.

They tried to do something in the 90's, but it died a slow death. I honestly can't see it happening unless all of the congress, senate and executive send back their campaign contributions from the insurance industry.

[Daculling]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '9')0 years olds with heart failure want heart transplants.

[DesertBear2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gampy', '
')Cut out the middle man, and you have less costs.

[smallpoxgirl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daculling', 'T')hey should be seeing a psychiatrist. Not an MD.

[Chicken_Little]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gnm', 'A')nd wealthy Canadians come over the border and pay for their own so they can have a surgery which was deemed "unnecessary" done or have their pick of physicians or just to avoid a really long wait.



You know, the government has done so well with all the money and control we've given it and all the government programs work so well why not let them handle healthcare too?

/sarcasm

-G

[Zardoz]

Unlimited funds for the Pentagon, though:

Bush Sends Congress $2.9 Trillion Budget Plan

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')resident Bush sent to Congress a $2.9 trillion budget plan that would dramatically increase military spending -- including an extra $245 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- but squeeze federal health care programs and most domestic agencies to achieve his goal of eliminating the deficit by 2012.

The proposal seeks to make permanent tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 at a cost of $374 billion over five years. And it would slice nearly $96 billion over five years from Medicare and Medicaid, the government's health care programs for the poor and the elderly. The proposal would also cut spending at eight federal agencies -- including the education, environment and interior departments -- to below fiscal 2006 levels.