truth.

Health care is not a right. Why would you have rights to someone else's services? You have rights to your life, your liberties, and your paycheck. You have the right to keep what you worked for. You have rights to be protected.
But you have no rights to food, housing, cars, clothing, OR healthcare. If you don't have healthcareyou won't get treatment and you'll die. Guess what? If you don't have food, you'll starve, and again you'll die.
So by your standard, the food at the grocery store should be mine. I have the right to it right? After all, a man's gotta eat. If he don't eat, he dies.
The healthcare in the country is bad. We all know that. But the solution is not Obamacare. Anyone with half a brain will tell you that you can't have the government run your healthcare. They have no business running a business, let alone this one. It may work in Canada or France, but they have fraction of the population as this country.
the problem are all the freeloaders out therethe welfare lifers out there that are too lazy to take care of themselves and depends on others to do it for them.
Man the F up. Get a job. Go to school. Take care of your own family and don't depend on me, your neighbors, or your politicians to take care of you.

I would agree that some things need to be changed. If there were a way to regulate costs that would be great. I have no idea how to do that.
I also believe that people need some incentive to do things for themselves. The government is not responsible for our lives. If health care were free we would face long waiting lists for appointments, fewer qualified doctors and medical equipment built by the lowes bidder.
I am a military wife and I can tell you first hand what government run health care does to peopleThere is a long military history in my family and my grandfather died at age 55 because his blood pressure medication was changed because the Army found a cheaper manufacturer.
I have waited in the ER of an on base hospital with an actively bleeding child and an extremely painful bladder infection for up to 9 hours. The place wasn't even that busy.
When I opted to go see a private doctor for the same condition I was tested, treated and medicated within an hour. Yes, I paid a co pay for this visit, and I will gladly continue to do so because some things, even if they are "free" are just not worth it.
"I take a problem and chew on it til all the flavor's gone, then I stick it in my hair"

Did you take that straight out an Ayn Rand book? That's funny.
Too bad every other industrialized country on earth proved it could be done.

i'm sorry but your wrong.
while i can agree with your altruistic view, it would be lovely if everyone had healthcare, but you're not thinking rationally or logical.
healthcare is a service and a costly one at that. things don't just arise from nothing, money doesn't just appear; things cannot function without fuel. something is going to have to power the machines, devices and tools to preform surgery and whatnot, and that has to come from somewhere. the only logistical way for a gov. to ensure care for everyone is with taxes. now, maybe you don't mind paying more in taxes, but you are not everyone, and you can't say that other people 'should'. just like you can't make people work for free.
essentially, you are wanting all of this to work and operate for free.

I agree health should be every humans right and not be a money making industry but think about all the doctors who spend years and years going to school, spending their money to learn and taking all their time to learn, who have to make a living after they put all their hard work and money into learning how to become a health practitioner. You know how many years, money and time these doctors put into learning their trade and can't live on air! And the ex ray techs, nurses and all the help need to survive after living on mac and cheese and studying for so many years. You have to realize they gave up their lives, time and small money at the time to take years to learn to be a doctor, ect. They are not going to be poor and broke and not be compensated after all their hard work to learn the trade. Logically, everyone needs to eat and live, and the more time they spend putting into a education and learning a trade, the more they should be compensated.

This message has been deleted.

oh well

This message has been deleted.

How am i naive?

How old are you, Knicks? Are you really this naive?

Doctors are not supposed to compete. There should be no competition when it comes to HEALTHCARE. Doctors job's are to help not compete first and help second.

I think you're view of the American public is a bit narrow and short sighted, which isn't necessarily you're fault. If you live outside of the US then there are likely several things you haven't considered.
First, healthcare is provided for low income families by the states (in most states). Shifting this to a national healthcare program runs legal complications as (at least previously) this has been a matter controlled by the state, and states rarely like to shift power to the federal government. With the United States being classified as a federal republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_republic), this can be a real challenge.
Second, we Americans generally pride ourselves on the many choices we have. We often see choice and freedom as the same thing. Free markets give us choice in the products and services we receive and who receive them from. Shifting to a pure federally run healthcare program would reduce choice in who provides our service, and for many Americans this is a deal breaker. There would also be no option to opt-out, further reducing choice. While it is generally agreed that opting out of health insurance is a poor choice, it is a risk-reward system that I believe should be decided upon by the individual, especially in the case of younger adults without a family.
Third, there are financial complications. Currently the total cost of health care is ultimately decided by negotiations between hospitals, physicians, and insurance companies. Larger insurance companies have more pull because of a larger subscriber base and help to keep health care costs lower, however this comes at the cost to the providers and therefore the staff. In the case of a single federally run program the government holds all of the leverage as if the hospital does not agree to the governments approved rate structure its only option is to move to cash payments only. Ultimately this will serve to reduce payments to doctors and nurses and the fear is that over time this will result in fewer skilled employees. Currently many hospitals and physicians will not accept the state provided insurance, and the patient is required to pay the difference or find a "welfare doctor" which has become synonymous with a lower standard of care.
Finally you have the issue of how to pay for the healthcare. Most likely it would come as an increase in income tax. This would mean that an individual that has worked hard through school or apprenticeship and receives a job making $100,000 per year would pay more for health insurance than a family of 5 making $50,000 annually. Individuals that have no interest in working and live off of the public welfare system would pay nothing and receive the same care.
Your statement, "Americans don't like to pay for a service that is given to anyone but themselves," is partially true. Subsidized programs are fine when run properly. Public works programs that put people to work, road and infrastructure, education, aid provided for healthcare facilities, assisted living centers for citizens, public safety, unemployment insurance, and hundreds of other programs are happily paid for even by people who have never been able to utilize them. However when money is taken from hard working honest citizens and in turn given to dishonest citizens that do not wish to work, avoid paying taxes, or take advantage of programs they should be excluded from is where many Americans draw the line. If the failed or broken systems were fixed then there would be additional money availble to fund (an) optional federal or state run program(s) to supplement the current system.

sure because there are only 2 sides that are possible..
either the American expensive model where doctors receive ridiculous amounts of money for 'motivation', or the socialist free way where doctors get paid next to nothing right?
Look at some West European countries where there is "free" health care. But really it isn't that free. Everybody has to pay for insurance, which costs you an X amount each month.
But if you need surgery, you get it within a few days. Doctors (those performing the surgeries) are still one of the best earning jobs in the country.
Health care for everyone really isn't that hard to achieve.
It's not the case that either everyone has to pay for their own medical bill, or no one has to pay a dime for free care like Americans like to explain it.
The problem is, Americans don't like to pay for a service that is given to anyone but themselves.
Imagine, you pay insurance every month but have a healthy life so you rarely have to use this insurance. But the neighbor is unlucky and needs surgery quite often, and is using the health care that is paid for by you! That is just a nightmare of course..

You know what the difference is between those countries with free health care and ours? We may cost money, but you get what you pay for.
By turning healthcare into a private industry, it drives competition, encouraging every doctor to work thier hardest and every hospital to strive to offer the best care.
This competition has also drove research, as the desire to provide the best care has encouraged hospitals to put more money into research than they would otherwise, causing America to be the source of many medical breakthroughs. It also makes being a doctor a highly coveted job, with competition for jobs ensuring that only the smartest make it.
Many foreign patients come over here to get treated, becuase in many cases the United States does offer the best quality care.
This kind of hard work requires motivation, and there is no greater motivation than money. Take away that motivation and turn every doctor into a poorly paid beurocrat, and all you are going to get is a bunch of idiots who only work hard enough not to get fired. But atleast it will be free.

I live in Argentina, here our constitution states that healthcare is free to all people that reside in the country.
Our public hospitals are collapsed, you get dates to receive surgery like 1 month or 2 after you ask for it.
Those who can afford, are in some tiype of prepaid medical services.
Free healthcare is useless. Problem with US health care is that it should be made easier to pay, as it is right now its so expensive that its very difficult to pay.
I had to go to a hospital in the US, after i broke my elbow. I was charged 6k dollars, and had to wait around 4 hours before i got treated.

made in 2002

My beef is, my father has a heart attack about a year ago. It was pretty massive, and nearly fatal. He flatlines for 5 moments. He had the heart attack while working on a car with a friend whom called the ambulence. The ride in the ambulence alone was 750 dollars. Then, to perform the life saving surgery and follow-ups totaled to around 87,000 dollars.Most of it is covered by my father's insurance, but what if he had none? There is NO way it costs almost 100,000 grand to save my father. However somehow it costs that much to save someone's life.
Had he been uncovered, he may have still received treatment, but what difference would it make? He would have to pay every cent he made for quite sometime to pay such a debt off. All for survival. It's ridiculous. Fortunately he is doing just fine, but questions continue to stir in my head. Not only about 'what-ifs' but about others who go through the same process as my father, especially the ones who have to make such hard decisions on do I save my life and cripple my family financially for life? Or do I just die?
The same goes for the pharmaceutical companies. We have old people in the U.S. who have to decide whether they buy their pills (which according to the DOCTOR who prescribed them will keep him/her alive) or they buy their weekly groceries. They have this dilemma because their refill of pills costs an arm and a leg, and may not be covered by medicare. That is just a dowmright disgrace. These people built the country to what it is, and they can't even get their medicine which keeps them alive as a token of the country's gratitude.
All in all you're just a nother brick in the wall.

This message has been deleted.

Well said. How can health care be a right? Are you going to force people to spend 100 grand to go to college, med school and intern for 12 years to work in an underpaid socialist system? Do we put a gun to the doctors head and force them to work should they refuse?
According to this god-awful preachy movie I guess putting a gun to a doctor's head is perfectly fine as long as it gets the leftist socialist agenda through. Other than that, gun-control for all too.
I completely agree. It's not like healthcare is free. How do you expect doctors live? They spent their @$$es off in medical school and they paid large sums of money. They work hard and they deserve money for these unbelievably complicated procedures. It costs money.
If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story.

I normally try to avoid politcal discussion online because most people have strong opinions and discussions tend to quickly degrade towards personal insults, but I hear this argument a lot
"And the reason that health care is so expensive is that the pharmaceutical corporations have such a tremendous lobby presence in Washington which allows them to significantly overcharge for medication."
Pharmaceutical companies dump literally billions of dollars annually in to drug research, many of these products never see the light of day because of adverse, unintended, and/or undesired side effects that outweigh the benefit, or the drug never causes the intended effects at all. After that drugs spend years being tested to ensure they are safe to use and continue to cost the company money while providing no return. Once the drug is released, money continues to be spent on extensive follow up studies, liability insurance, and out of court settlements for adverse effects even when clearly spelled out. The cost of medications are not from the cost of production, but a combination of the above. If you were to look over the balance sheets of a pharmaceutical company you would see the margins and PAT (profit after tax) are much lower than most industries in America.
The real reason prescription medications are so expensive are because of the "sue sue sue" mentality most Americans have. I am not saying a pharmeceutical company should not be liable, but if the possible side effects are clearly spelled out, and an informed decision is made that the possible side effects outweigh the condition you are trying to cure/treat/manage then the no court should award damages to the "victim." A recent case I can think of involved Wyeth. I believe, and I may be wrong, the drug in question was for gout and the warnings very clearly stated that an incorrect dosage or improper administration carried a sever risk of gangreen possibly leading to amputation. The patient opted for the drug and the physician prescribed too high of a dosage, the physician's assitant administrered the drug incorrectly and the worst case scenario happened. Despite FDA approval of the warnings, the physicians mistakes, and the informed consent from the patient knowing the risks a jury of peers awarded large punitive damages in favor of the patient from Wyeth.

I would rather pay extra taxes and know that i had health coverage it would probably work out to less than what some people pay for private or employer provided insurance. Not too long ago my husband had to have his appendix out in one of the worst hospitals i have ever seen and they didnt give him the proper care they should have because we were broke with no insurance they didnt even bother to close his incision correctly which delayed his recovery and made it even longer before he could work again and on top of that the job he had at the time fired himthe medical care in this country sucks and i think any doctor who puts money above saving someones life should have his license revoked

so true

Health care should be a basic human right. The government is elected to care for its citizens(or it should be). Instead of wasting trillions for war, they should be providing free health care to those that need it. Im going to be a realist and say that although the financial benefits are one of the reasons for becoming a doctor, another one should be to help people.
Just to point out that im generally conservative and in no way pushing any 'leftist socialist agenda' but its seems that Americans still have such a deep rooted fear of communism that any socialist ideal such as free health care is often rejected even when it would only benefit themselves.
And the reason that health care is so expensive is that the pharmaceutical corporations have such a tremendous lobby presence in Washington which allows them to significantly overcharge for medication.