Well these comments just exploded in a fiesta of arguing and outrage.

Already answered - see reply 42. I'll even quote the relevant section for you in the hope that you'll be bothered to read it this time.

The purpose of insurance is to cover the expenses that you can't pay for yourself. The government has taken over that process and forced insurance companies to cover elective care which increases risk which in turn increases cost of coverage. This was done by Senator Kennedy when he introduced HMO's as a matter of law. 20 years later Senator Kennedy then told us that HMO's were evil and we should go to nationalized health care. Both were wrong but he never fixed the HMO's or got rid of the bad law. By forcing the insurance companies to cover hangnails the cost of coverage goes up. Because of law suits insurance companies demand that doctors go overboard in their care to insure them for malpractice. more tests more cost, higher rates.

Taking care of sick people is easy and cheap until you order the insurance companies to cover colds, and scraped knees.

ok if he admits that he can't read it, and claims republicans can't read it, and people in the street can't read it, and nobody can really read it (or rather, comprehend it)... then:

1. Why write it out that way? (especially when they say they forced credit card companies to use "plain disclosure")

2. who actually wrote it then? if nobody can even understand it (and keep in mind, most congressmen are lawyers), then who writes it?

3. The constitution is a plain english legislation that works quite well... Why bother passing a thousand page bill who is not understood or read by the people who pass it, (and is then required to be read, understood, and obeyed by the doctors!) when you can just make and pass a short 1 page bill in plain english?

One major point is, Australia is not Bankrupt, quite the opposite. We are one of the few countries to get through the Financial Meltdown, relatively unscathed. No recession, no banks going bankrupt, and very little change to employment levels. Our healthcare covers everyone, and our private insurance covers everything, these private insurers do nothing but insure health, nothing else, and they are all in profit.

So the argument that countries with free health cover are drowning under the cost burden, is total BULLSHIT.

You maybe should check out other countries that have similar systems to Australia, and you will find the same in most countries, by the way Australia offers a more comprehensive cover than the others and we are doing very well thankyou, and definitely not bankrupt, in fact in the last quarter we actually moved into positive growth figures.

If you are going to make such statements, first check your facts, we had the debate you are having back in 1975, and we had all the same arguments that are being offered here, all of which came to naught, we got Medicare, and now very few would say anything but good about the system.

Try acting like Christians and think, "What would Jesus say on the subject".

Perhaps when the US adopts the level of health care the rest of the world has, it will adopt the level of medical research the rest of the world contributes.

It's amazing how some people don't get that any deal, including provision of medical care, has two sides, a buyer and a supplier.

Health care is the supply.

Health insurance is (an organisation of) buyers.

By providing health insurance to all, the supply is not directly affected. Universal health insurance does not imply universal health care.

What universal health insurance will do is lower prices. Universal health insurance pools buyers and creates a monopsony. Monopsony power forces prices down.

But the lower the proces the fewer people will want to supply (and the worse the quality of the supply becomes).

Draginol once explained that there is only a finite amount of healthcare to go around, just like with any product (i.e. there is no infinite amoung of cars, which is why cars cost money). Currently that finite amount is channeled into the market according to how much every buyer is willing to pay.

Universal health insurance will bring down prices.

But it will not change the basic fact that halthcare is not an infinite resource and the fact that it lowers prices will actually make decrease the amoung of healthcare available in the market (since, for example, fewer people will want to work as doctors if the pay goes down).

Assuming a model society with 10 people (with 10 different incomes) and 3 doctors (who will provide for 3 patients each), the current system will cover 9 of the 10 people and the best of the three doctors will have the richest 3 patients.

If universal health insurance somehow managed to give all 10 patients the money to pay for their service, the 3 doctors will still only be able to cover 9 people (since their number has not increased) but there might not be 3 doctors any more since the healthcare costs went down and maybe one of the 3 finds he can work in another country for more money.

I liked that idea for universal law services insurance.

A committe of physicians will decide which law services are necessary and how much lawyers should get paid.

People who need a lawyer won't pay as much as they can to get the most corrupt lawyer the market has to offer but will simply tell the state-run insurance company what they need and the state-run insurance company (i.e. the committe of physicians) will then decide what type of lawyer they need and how much he should get paid.

Best argument against government financing of healthcare I've heard put forth in awhile.

Soylent Green.

You're quite right, Leauki - the 'value of a life' argument has no logical endpoint.

It's people!!!!

No, the sad truth is that your life is worth more depending on where you are born. How else do you explain countries with both a benefits system (of any kind) and an immigration policy? People will quite readily agree that children should get free education in their country, but you'll be hard pressed to find those that would support bringing in all the children from other countries that don't get an education and providing it to them. Similarly developed countries will have some form of benefit for those who are poor, but won't give the same funds to someone who is poor in a different country, or let those people come here.

Countries having significant immigration will also often see rises in tension when jobs are scarce, such as 'stop all these immigrants coming in and taking our jobs'.

So 2 Americans > 1 American, 2 Africans > 1 African, but 1 American != 1 African.

You can also see the difference at a simplistic level in terms of average expected lifetime income - the figure is much higher for an American than an African, hence the American's life value is higher.

The irony is that an alternative system of no UHC (which I'm presuming you support given your opposition to this argument, which is one in relation to UHC) is even worse - instead of not providing treatment to those where the cost is prohibitive, you're not providing it to anyone - they all get left on their own to try and find the money to pay for it. Also with UHC those elderly people who might only get 1 month extra life are still perfectly entitled to spend their money on obtaining the extra healthcare they desire, just as they would be without UHC (unless the UHC system chosen is a poor one where private healthcare is prohibited, something which is detrimental to everyone). On the positive side, since they're elderly they'll also have had far more working years of life to build up savings to fund such healthcare, unlike someone who turns 18 and is struck with an expensive (and potentially life threatening) illness.