Slashdot Mirror

When I hear comments about how it's not right that the government provides 'free' things I sometimes wonder what people are smoking. Look, health care is a necessity and because we have such an insanely high gini coefficient, without either employer or government help most households could simply not afford it. And yes people do DIE when they lack proper health care, its not just a matter of going to the ER. They will stabilize you but not provide long term treatment. Good luck getting chemotherapy if you don't have insurance.

It's easy to go about limited government if you are in the top 25% in terms of income in the population. But median family income is $50,000. That is not a lot. How is a household in the 35% percentile earning $33,000 supposed to fork out $13,400 a year? And that figure is assuming that they get the same discount that a large business gets which for an individual is not going to happen.

Why don't the limited government crazies say the same thing about medicare? After all why should the government provide free services? The most f**ked up thing about it all is that those without insurance are expected to pay taxes (medicare tax) to provide other people with the very thing they lack.

And for those who love to go on about what the government should or should not do get this: Why do we spend over 4% of our GDP on defense and spend insane sums in Afghanistan and Iraq... ans: supposedly to protect our country. Now what does it mean to 'protect'. It means to prevent death and destruction. Well what is the point of spending $651.2 billion to maybe prevent an attack when way more people are suffering and dieing because of lack of adequate health care?????

The whole issue is insane. The free market simply does not work in health care. And I am some one who is pro free market. But at some point you have wake up and smell the coffee.

do you really think the expense to provide medical care for the majority of the elderly is actually going to exceed the cost to feed, clothe and house them?

Healthcare accounts for 17.6% of GDP. Social Security is only 4.4%. So, yes, much much larger, even considering any fictitious "savings" postulated by replacing a free market with government healthcare. In reality, of course, as government subsidizes healthcare more and livespans continue to increase, both the costs of Social Security and healthcare will increase.

By your logic we don't have to worry about any of this because perfectly designed robots will eventually take care of all of us.

Well, we would if there were any incentives for such a thing. Unfortunately there aren't. Government doesn't incentivize technological innovation through full-employment policies and entitlements. It incentivizes pointless make-work and reproduction.

What's even sillier is how you have this image of limitless medical technology in the near future, yet you're convinced that it will only prolong the lives of "worthless" and "drooling" elderly. If these advances are so great, why would we still have these incapacitated elderly?

Because having government provide healthcare by force "in perpetuity" (your words) provides no incentive for improving quality of life, only it's extension.

They could support themselves.

Why would they work at all? They're retired because the elderly already own 90% of everything and receive the majority of government benefits.

Not mentioning the 40 millions with no coverage at all.

Citation needed.

Several studies estimate the number of uninsured Americans. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly 47 million Americans, or 20 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2008, their latest data available.

I just googled, and this site claims the figure is "nearly" 46 million Americans without health care in 2007. I don't know whether the National Coalition on Health Care is a lobby group or what, so take with a grain of salt, but 45 million people without health care is mind-boggling to me.

I imagine her biggest single expense is malpractice...

The National Coalition of Healthcare has some interesting data here. I don't know their particular "angle" so you may want to take their data with a grain of salt. However one point in particular that gelled with info I have heard from practicing physicians is the impact of administrative costs. I don't have their source handy but in essence when comparing healthcare provider's (nurses, doctors, techs, etc...) cost to administrative ones, administrative costs have skyrocketed in the mid 90's -- not sure if it was after HIPAA or more HMO type events that it was correlated (although not necessary cuasated) with. At any rate - my point (and based on the data in the link above) is that administrative costs are a huge factor as well.

There have been many comments here about the "outrageous" salaries of doctors (and parent poster, this is not you, but something I have to rant about for a second). I wonder if they are referring to the 120-140k that a family physician gets for their 7 years of training, constant call schedule, and constant licensing requirements? How many software engineers would train that hard for that long for that kind of money? Software is necessary and helps people -- let's face it, without it the world as we know it would not go around. Software can (and constantly does) save peoples lives, relieves suffering, and in my (and many people's opinion) are a huge benefit to society (Windows comments, bugs, and such aside). But how many engineers would take cuts because this software is too expensive? I know plenty of software people who make close to or better than a family doc (and I was one of those people, even post-boom)

And yes, there are those specialties that make 250k, 350k, etc... after their 4+ years of med school and 5-9 years of training after that. Many of these are high stress, high stakes jobs with 80+ hour workweeks. I know that many of you have worked deathmarches before. How would you like to sign up for the 80-100 hour work weeks for an indefinite period of time? How much monetary incentive would that take? What would you be making at your current hourly rate if you worked those hours? This isn't a "poor doctors work too hard" jab, but perhaps something to think about what it would take for you to work under the stress/pressure/hours that doctors do.

If you think that the 200k a physician makes or the 80k a traveling nurse makes is too much, then what about the health care insurance company CEO? The health care insurance actuarial?

Ok - end rant. That's what a get for commenting after a bike crash.

You couldn't be more wrong.

The US spent 2.4 trillion on healthcare in 2008. with 304m population that is nearly 8k per year for every man, woman and child. Compare that to the paltry 16 million new vehicles sold in 2007. They would have to average $150k each to add up to the same amount as healthcare spending.

Even if you subtract out the 30% wasted on private insurance overhead the average person spends quite a bit more for healthcare than cars. In fact, the average US citizen spends more on healthcare than anything else except housing.

Anecdotal evidence about your relatives are meaningless. I broke my foot last year and it cost $100k.

You want perspective? The US spends 17% of GDP on healthcare. Please don't talk about how cheap health care is.

• Made their children compete with world labor rates (instead of far closer national or regional rates)
• Commoditize as much as possible to compete only on price.
• Exported millions of 'middle class' jobs, manufacturing, knowledge, service, etc.
• Raised the middle class workforce entry barrier to include a 4y degree, which in-debts twenty-somethings with a mortgage-sized payment without actually owning a house or property
• Driven up costs of housing by insane urban planning (or lack thereof)
• To paraphrase a quote generally attributed to de Tocqueville, they've hired legislators to bribe themselves with their own money. See all entitlement programs and the most recent redistribution, er...Bailout, nope, umm...Stimulus Packages (I think that's the PC term this week).
• Are prepared to tax Gen X/Y into oblivion to continue their excessive lifestyles. I'm interested in theories as to how my taxes WON'T go up, at any level of government.
• Created huge indirect taxes through legislation, think of the various mandatory insurances.
• Created a legal environment which is threatening to anyone trying to run a business, or develop new products, or treat patients.

As to the thread topic, unless those companies listed in the theory start buying up track rights, or property for new track, they're pretty worthless to the rails. Yes they have great manufacturing capacity and talent, but the railroads a

If history is any judge, medical processes get consistently cheaper and more widely available.

I'm sorry but the facts do not support this conclusion. The percentage of uninsured persons in the United States has been on the rise for some time and as of 2006 was at just over 20%. The percentage of people (workers and dependents) with employment-based health insurance has dropped from 70 percent in 1987 to 59 percent in 2006. Clearly, availability is going down. As to costs... You must not read the papers. Medicaid is about to go bankrupt due to skyrocketing health care costs.

First of all whilst insurance prices do effect how much people have to pay for medication and health care they are not the same thing
Also current short term economic busts or booms are not the same as long term figures which are going down.

Do you seriously believe the only way to acquire wealth is to sit and wait for someone to die and have it given to you? Sheesh.

I didn't say it was the only way. They could spend it. The majority of wealth (~70%) is owned by under 5% of the population, and given their spending habits, I just think it's far more practical to wait for them to die.

Yes for the 5% of the population which have rich parents most of which are spoilt brats and idiots as well as already being reasonably rich.
further more it is often the case the very rich parents/grandparents provide for there offspring anyway

Let me tell you the easiest way to become wealthy: SAVE. That simple. Don't be a typical consumer idiot. Save 25% of your income. By the time you retire, you will be one of those rich people you think hoard all the wealth.

I thought the easiest way was being born into a rich family or winning the lottery. And as to "saving"... Honey, don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining; Most of us are living paycheck to paycheck, and we spend everything we get on basic necessities. We're not "consumer idiots" -- the technical term for people like us is fucking broke.

people who live paycheck to paycheck are usualy born in slums, are bad with money, are working below the minimum wage or buy/take on things they can't afford (a common trate in a America according to the recent financial crises

What makes you think immortality leads to population increases?

People live longer and they're still going to want to fuck. Heeeere's your sign.

I doubt that immortal people will continue to crank out kids decade after decade.

Funny, since most people look at having kids as their best shot at immortality.

It is common for very old people not to want to have sex especially women also it is likely people will have protected sex and not want children (if they have sex at all) after the first hundred years
Finley if people are immortal then there is little point in seeking out other less efficient means apart from as as safe guards and people do not have hundreds of the same or similar safeguards for one thing.

If history is any judge, medical processes get consistently cheaper and more widely available.

I'm sorry but the facts do not support this conclusion. The percentage of uninsured persons in the United States has been on the rise for some time and as of 2006 was at just over 20%. The percentage of people (workers and dependents) with employment-based health insurance has dropped from 70 percent in 1987 to 59 percent in 2006. Clearly, availability is going down. As to costs... You must not read the papers. Medicaid is about to go bankrupt due to skyrocketing health care costs.

Do you seriously believe the only way to acquire wealth is to sit and wait for someone to die and have it given to you? Sheesh.

I didn't say it was the only way. They could spend it. The majority of wealth (~70%) is owned by under 5% of the population, and given their spending habits, I just think it's far more practical to wait for them to die.

Let me tell you the easiest way to become wealthy: SAVE. That simple. Don't be a typical consumer idiot. Save 25% of your income. By the time you retire, you will be one of those rich people you think hoard all the wealth.

I thought the easiest way was being born into a rich family or winning the lottery. And as to "saving"... Honey, don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining; Most of us are living paycheck to paycheck, and we spend everything we get on basic necessities. We're not "consumer idiots" -- the technical term for people like us is fucking broke.

What makes you think immortality leads to population increases?

People live longer and they're still going to want to fuck. Heeeere's your sign.

I doubt that immortal people will continue to crank out kids decade after decade.

Funny, since most people look at having kids as their best shot at immortality.

Once again for the dumbasses with reading comprehension problems American's are paying MORE per capita and we are receiving fewer visits to the doctor and we have less of a life expectancy for the DOUBLE we are paying:

"Facts on the Cost of Health Insurance and Health Care

Introduction

By several measures, health care spending continues to rise at the fastest rate in our history.

In 2007, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent â" two times the rate of inflation.1 Total spending was $2.3 TRILLION in 2007, or $7600 per person.1 Total health care spending represented 16 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4.2 TRILLION in 2016, or 20 percent of GDP.1

In 2007, employer health insurance premiums increased by 6.1 percent - two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,100. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,400.2

Experts agree that our health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care, waste and fraud. These problems significantly increase the cost of medical care and health insurance for employers and workers and affect the security of families."

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

I swear Republicans have been fact free since 1980. It's so infuriating like talking to a wall or something. :(

Lol.. And you know nothing. Nothing at all. I don't believe anything like that. I believe that if you can afford your own health care, then you should be paying for it, not some nanny state. I believe that just because you decided to skip out on your own health care obligations and opt for the Cell phones, the brand new cars, the recreational vehicles, the larger house, the luxury anything, or whatever, that you are not now all the sudden too poor to afford your own health care.

There is a difference that idiots like you will probably never see. It is called personal responsibility and if everyone would practice more of it, the world would be a better place. It would be better in many ways but most readily observable would be you pay would be higher because you wouldn't be distracted by all the bling surrounding you when your paying for your own health care instead of wasting what little money you make on a new Wii or the latest Xbox. You would see that your making peanuts and demand more money or maybe even trade more work for more money.

It isn't a Fuck you DIE, it is get a loan and pay for it yourself situation. If you weren't so damn selfish in the first place, you would have been paying for insurance instead of blowing your money on meaningless crap which would have covered your illness and it would make everyone else's insurance premiums cheaper in the process. I'm sick and tired of hearing people cry that they can't afford insurance when they spend $70 a week on smoking 2 packs of cigarettes a day and half that or more in beer each week. I'm tired of watching people sit in front of their brand new plasma or big screen TV, flipping through the 25 some premium channels claiming they can't afford their own health care. I'm tired of people pulling up in their brand new cars telling me that the government should be paying for their health care because after their inflated payment and the full coverage car insurance that is hyped because they have speeding tickets, there just isn't enough left over to get insurance.

In 2004, the average employer health plan costs a whopping total of $12,100 a year, that's just over $3000 per person and the employer covers a sizable portion of that. A working family with two income earners can afford that pretty easily. The average single person coverage was around $4,400 a year. That comes out to around $360 a month or about $84 a week but the annual premium isn't that much in reality until people start reaching the ages of 55 or older. The $100 a month cell phone plan and $80 per month cable bill covers half of that easily and for the majority of people, would also cover their single coverage premiums.

And that doesn't start to count the programs already availible that cover a good portion of people making low incomes. In fact, National estimates claim that just over half of the children eligible for existing government paid health care programs are actually enrolled. There is a disturbing number of eligible people who don't take advantage of the existing programs for whatever reasons. And that isn't just limited to health care, you will find reports talking about food stamps and other government services too.

So lets recap, if you can afford it, pay for it. If you can't, take advantage of the existing programs. Once that happens, if the programs need to be expanded, then do so. But it is bullshit to lay claim to something that people can afford themselves if they would only chose to do so. There is no reason why the government should be responsable for paying something that most of us can more than afford. And no, that's not a let them DIE attitude, it's a take some fucking responsibility for your own life attitude.

I'm Canadian, and I pay less in taxes, total, than what it would cost me to pay for adequate health insurace in the US. According to a quick google, the insurance premium from an employer health plan covering a family of four would be around $12,000. That's more than my family of 4 paid in taxes last year. Counting income and sales tax.

The American Medical Association restricts the supply of MDs, and by law you can't get most medical care from anyone who isn't an MD.

AC is correct: you cannot be a "realtor." You can be a "REALTOR" (Registered trademark) if the National Association of Realtors permits it.

Both restrict capacity of the labor in their industries. This is known to create at best Cournot competition. Meanwhile, a market that is not capacity constrained has Betrand competition - where the mere threat of entry can keep prices near their minimum. Cournot competition reduces economic efficiency (id est, screws you out of money).

I'd estimate the average working American is getting "screwed" (how much he pays less what a competitive market would cost) by about $6,000 per year (of the approximately $16,000/yr of medical expense he and his company pay). Your paycheck is probably light by $500 per month due to the AMA tax.

It is also worth noting that a supply shortage of saved lives is equivalent to preventable deaths. This artificial shortage raises prices of having your life saved while simultaneously reducing your odds of having your life saved.

The AMA and NAR are de facto monopsonists, restricting the ease of health care and real estate purchase respectively, and using your medical bills and need for housing to make their members artificially richer.

Don't believe that doctors are getting paid "too much"? See if you can find the trend in the Forbes best paying jobs in America:
1. Anesthesiologist
2. Surgeon
3. Obstetrician
4. Orthodontist
5. Oral Surgeon
6. Internist
7. Prosthodontist
8. Psychiatrist
9. General Practitioner
10. Chief Executive Officer
11. Physician and Surgeon, Other
12. Pediatrician
13. Dentist
14. Airline Pilot
15. Podiatrist
16. Lawyer

Productivity in the US has been going up steadily over the last decade, but real median income has gone down. Where does all that extra money go that you're not getting paid? Your company spends it on health insurance, most of which ends up in the hands of MDs.

OPEC dominates the trillion dollar global petroleum industry. The AMA dominates the two trillion dollar national medical industry. Politicians blame OPEC for our economy because doctors write big checks.

Not so fast...

"Total spending was $2.3 TRILLION in 2007, or $7600 per person"
"Health care spending is 4.3 times the amount spent on national defense"

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

Cost of the war in Iraq, in total, 1.2 trillion.
$1,721 per person.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business/17leonhardt.html
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

All you have to do is look at what has actually happened with WalMart.

Ok let's look at what's happening with Walmart. Walmart is the world's biggest retailer, and is one of China's biggest. The Chinese seem able to afford to shop there. Or take Brazil and Mexico. Walmart has been a success in both countries. In Brazil Walmart is closing in on Brazil's largest retailer, the French company Carrefour.

they're raking in billions of $ while Medicaide or other programs pay their workers health care costs

As in other areas I'd prefer a free market in health care. I don't believe in employer provided health insurance. In the US this is a vestige from World War II. Then the US had wage control laws that prevented employers from paying employees more, instead to allow businesses to attract employees employers were allowed to offer health insurance to employees. This alone distorted the market for health care and insurance. Even today laws and regulations favor employers who provide health insurance instead of paying them more so they can buy the type of insurance they want. However as you point out with Walmart some employers don't offer insurance for employees. Because health costs are skyrocketing employers are either requiring employees to pay more or are dropping coverage. That has been a sticking point with US auto manufacturers and United Auto Workers. The companies want workers to pay more but the union won't go along. What needs to be done is to let employers pay employees more without either having to pay more taxes then allow employees to buy insurance.

In any case you sound like you've swallowed the whole 'there is an evil liberal agenda to have all powerful government'.

On whether or not there's any agenda or not doesn't matter to me, but if there is one it's not liberal. Liberals, real ones not fakes, want liberty and small government.

It is crap. It is Corporatist propaganda.

Looks like you've missed where I've railed against corporation. A number of tymes I've stated corporations should have their Corporate Charter revoked if t hey no longer served to public good. The very first corporation, the Dutch East India Company, was granted a corporate charter for this very reason in 1602. Two years later the Honourable East India Company was granted a charter for the same reason, to serve the public good. If corporations today were treated the same it wouldn't be a problem. Thomas Jefferson said "I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of their country."

while the Republicans have given loads of lip service to shrinking government, they've failed utterly to live up to their word.

Republicans have never done anything to shrink government. Two of past 3 Republican presidents increased the size of government. What's ironic is that the republican president that warned of the military industrial complex, Dwight D. Eisenhower, actually made it stronger. Many Americans believe it was Kennedy who first sent US troops to Viet Nam, but it was actually Ike who sent Colonel Edward Lansdale to undermine a vote on whether North and South Viet Nam would re

I don't think the uninsured people are a problem in terms of the total cost. For instance look at

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

and

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0511-07.htm

The first says that total health care spending in 2005 was $2 trillion. The second says that total cost of providing care to the uninsured in 2004 was $125 billion.

Sure that's a lot but it's still only about 6.25%. All this universal insurance idea will do is give even more profits to the health care industry. I am much more interested in lowering the costs of health care rather than just spreading it out over more people.

I never said the system is perfect. What makes my little scenario work, realistically, is that the people who can afford the high price vastly outnumber those that can't afford the treatment.

I doubt this order of magnitude is sustainable in the long run. However, my point was simply that maximizing profit is not equivalent or even close to maximizing people receiving treatment. If you do however figure out a way to do it, there's a guaranteed Nobel prize waiting for you :).

The system you suggest would just compound the problem. The current system has many flaws, but those who do have coverage typically get decent care (there are exceptions of course). Getting more people to participate in the health care system by making it affordable for all is a better solution, along with preventive care. A fee for service system is what exists right now for the uninsured, and it's one of major causes for high cost of health care. The uninsured cant afforded to pay for any services, so they allow a once easily treatable problem manifest into much larger and costlier one. Since the cost usually gets absorbed by the hospitals, it is then passed onto those who can pay. As a result premiums and co-pays increase and those who at one time could afford insurance declines. The stats I see seem to reflect this.

I don't know about everyone else, but my premiums went up 90% this year. Over the past 5-7 years they only increased by 2-10% each year.

Anyway, tying credit to health care will just make the system worse. People will be forced to put off medical procedures that will eventually cost more if they get worse.

I'll say it again, PREVENTIVE CARE!

http://www.cbpp.org/8-29-06health.htm
http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

at least in the US, there's two types of private health care: group plans and individual plans. a group plan is generally bought by an employer, union, or other type of organization, with a discounted fixed (in the sense that every member pays the same per person on their insurance) per-member cost that reflects the bulk number of plans that will be sold. an individual plan is sold to individuals/families, and the cost is based solely on the lifestyle choices, family medical history, and current medical issues of the individual/family purchasing the plan.

the problem here is that, regardless of the health of your employees, health insurance is going to continue to cost more. 40 obese employees out of 100 total employees paying $10 a month more isn't going to stop the increased costs next year when prices jump another $14-$18 a month per employee (which is fairly low compared to last years average of 7.7% increase). mind you, as a large number of employers offer full or partial medical coverage, not everyone sees these increases if their company/organization eats the cost, but I assure you that they happen across the board regardless of insurance company or individual health.

while I don't personally have an issue with what clarian is doing, I urge healthy people to understand that this is in no way benefiting them. people backing it purely because they believe this will benefit them need to speak with their human resources department or medical insurance agent. the only people that benefit from this would be a) employers who offer partial medical coverage, b) any insurance company that starts doing this, and c) any truly unhealthy people that use this as a means to achieve better health.

So, the "federal" Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) program is providing universal health coverage to all American students?

You might want to actually learn something about the universal health care in countries to which you've never travelled before you proclaim your system to be so infinitely better. Listening to "conservative" pundits complain about a system that works pretty damn well won't teach you anything real about it.

There are approximately 46 million Americans without health care coverage (16%), why do they not have coverage? Is it because they're lazy or illegal immigrants? Well the National Coalition on Healthcare has this to say:

        * Millions of workers don't have the opportunity to get coverage. A third of firms in the U.S. did not offer coverage in 2004 (2).
        * Nearly two-fifths (38 percent) of all workers are employed in smaller businesses, where less than two-thirds of firms now offer health benefits to their employees. (4)It is estimated that 266,000 companies dropped their health coverage between 2000-2005 and 90 percent of those firms have less than 25 employees.
        * Rapidly rising health insurance premiums is the main reason cited by all small firms for not offering coverage. Health insurance premiums are rising at extraordinary rates. Over the past five years the average annual increase in inflation has been 2.5 percent while health insurance premiums for small firms have escalated an average of 15 percent annually (2).
        * Even if employees are offered coverage on the job, they can't always afford their portion of the premium. Employee spending for health insurance coverage (employee's share of family coverage) has increased 143 percent between 2000 and 2005. (5)
        * Losing a job, or quitting voluntarily, can mean losing affordable coverage - not only for the worker but also for their entire family. Only seven (7) percent of the unemployed can afford to pay for COBRA health insurance - the continuation of group coverage offered by their former employers. Premiums for this coverage average almost $700 a month for family coverage and $250 for individual coverage, a very high price given the average $1,100 monthly unemployment check (6).
        * Coverage is unstable during life's transitions. A person's link to employer-sponsored coverage can also be cut by a change from full-time to part-time work, or self-employment, retirement or divorce (7).
        * About 58 percent of uninsured adults report having changed or lost jobs in 2003. "Job lock" keeps others in positions they might have left if not for fear of losing coverage. Job mobility of husbands is 25 percent to 32 percent lower when their wives do not have employment-based health insurance (7).

Funny, I don't see "ignorance of the available opportunities", "illegally resident in the country", or "couldn't be bothered to apply for it" listed there.

But "free healthcare" advocates tend to forget that Americans with real jobs already get "free healthcare"

Uh, no. In point of fact, many get no healthcare at all - 27 million Americans with jobs don't have health insurance. Only about 59 percent of businesses provide health insurance to employees.

Many small businesses can no longer afford to provide coverage, and many employees can't afford their portion of premiums. There's a loss of coverage even amoung households making $50k+/year.

while health spending accounts and direct negotiating drive prices downward

Again, another misunderstanding you have - The national debt is a credit line extended to US corporations backed by the rest of the world.

In America, in contrast, 60% of people have no medical coverage

That sounds suspiciously like a figure you pulled out of your ass. So, I checked with the National Coalition on Health Care (a nonprofit which advocates universal government health care, BTW), and according to them almost 16% of the US population had no health insurance in 2004. Nowhere close to 60%, and even 16% may be overstating the case.

In any case, lack of universal health care has precisely nothing to do with the recent resurgence of tuberculosis. The US almost completely wiped out TB without the help of government health insurance. The only reason it's back now is thanks to the influx of immigration from countries less interested in maintaining their public health, as the grandparent post suggested.

There certainly is something the government can do to help, but creating a nationalized health care bureaucracy isn't it. The federal government is just about capable of building a wall and digging a few ditches, given the political will; but keep the bureaucrats out of my personal health decisions, thanks.

A counted number, actually; it's about 45 million Americans right this moment, and in a typical year ~75 million will lack health insurance for some of that year. (link)

So, what does that mean?

It means 18,000 dead Americans every year.

It means a 9/11 every two months.

But why should you care? It's only lazy jobless bums dying, right?

Contrary to expectations, most of the uninsured are employed full-time.

But we're saving money, right?

Not only does the USA spend $35 billion/year to treat the uninsured, much of that is for emergency treatment that could be much more efficiently (and cheaply) handled with an earlier diagnosis. Moreover, the lack of health care costs the nation about $100 billion yearly in lost productivity. (link)

But it would cost too much to insure everyone, right?

At an average cost of $9,000 for family insurance and assuming families of three, the cost to insure those 45 million Americans would be $135 billion, or very nearly the amount saved in uninsured medical costs and lost productivity. At the very least, $35 billion of that is already being paid for (uninsured emergency care), and about $20 billion would come back to the government in taxes, representing a maximum cost of $80 billion.

$80 billion for 18,000 American lives; that's $4,500,000 per dead American. In other words, each $1 billion spent on missile defense is equivalent to 220 dead Americans. The $10 billion per year we're spending on missile defense could save as many lives in two years as all the terrorist attacks on US soil have taken since the nation was founded.

In the richest nation in the world, is that acceptable?

Up to you. But know the facts before you decide how many American lives a particular government program is worth to you, and which is the most efficient way to save American lives.

A counted number, actually; it's about 45 million Americans right this moment, and in a typical year ~75 million will lack health insurance for some of that year. (link)

So, what does that mean?

It means 18,000 dead Americans every year.

It means a 9/11 every two months.

But why should you care? It's only lazy jobless bums dying, right?

Contrary to expectations, most of the uninsured are employed full-time.

But we're saving money, right?

Not only does the USA spend $35 billion/year to treat the uninsured, much of that is for emergency treatment that could be much more efficiently (and cheaply) handled with an earlier diagnosis. Moreover, the lack of health care costs the nation about $100 billion yearly in lost productivity. (link)

But it would cost too much to insure everyone, right?

At an average cost of $9,000 for family insurance and assuming families of three, the cost to insure those 45 million Americans would be $135 billion, or very nearly the amount saved in uninsured medical costs and lost productivity. At the very least, $35 billion of that is already being paid for (uninsured emergency care), and about $20 billion would come back to the government in taxes, representing a maximum cost of $80 billion.

$80 billion for 18,000 American lives; that's $4,500,000 per dead American. In other words, each $1 billion spent on missile defense is equivalent to 220 dead Americans. The $10 billion per year we're spending on missile defense could save as many lives in two years as all the terrorist attacks on US soil have taken since the nation was founded.

In the richest nation in the world, is that acceptable?

Up to you. But know the facts before you decide how many American lives a particular government program is worth to you, and which is the most efficient way to save American lives.

Very few people complained about healthcare in the US until Hillary Clinton riled people up...

According to The National Coalition on Health Care, 79% of Americans agree with the statement "there is something seriously wrong with our health care system," 87% agree that "the quality of medical care for the average person needs to be improved," and only 15% have "complete confidence" in hospital care. Less than half of people (44%) say they have "confidence in the health care system to take care of me." 69% believe the federal government can play an important role in making health care better".

Four in ten Americans report having had a "bad" experience with treatment or care, don't have confidence in the system to take good care of them, or believe hospitals have cut corners to save money, thus endangering patients.

According to The Commonwealth Fund, 54% of American doctors are concerned that patients will not be able to afford the health care they need.