I wish they would give us the healthcare that our congress people and senators get free, from us, the taxpayers. I think all of them should have to pay the full and total cost of their premiums. Most of them are rolling in the dough anyway. Seems like you have to have big bucks to be in politics this day and age. Not all of them have $$$$ of course, but it seems like most do.

Kat - you mean you want the health insurance plan congress has right? I wouldn't necessarily want the healthcare our congress people receive - who knows what that is.

Kat, congressmen don't get their healthcare for free -- they are eligible for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The coverage is good, but not perfect. A family plan in Blue Cross costs $432 per month (considerably more if you add dental and/or vision care), and there are copays and deductibles. Plus, if they are on Medicare, they have to pay the Medicare premiums AND continue to pay the full cost of Blue Cross.

I agree that most members of congress have lots of money, but it's not from their salaries. They rake in large amount of dough in public appearances, insider trading, etc. Actually, I wish they could be given a substantial pay increase, but forbidden to accept speaking fees, lobbyist contributions, insider trading, etc.

Most of them make $174,000 per year, which is very low when you consider that they have to maintain a home in their home state AND obtain housing in the DC area. A decent one-bedroom apartment near Capitol Hill rents for over $2,000 a month.

"but it's not from their salaries. They rake in large amount of dough in public appearances, insider trading, etc" Yes, I know that. My point was that to be in politics at all, you need to be wealthy. I know their pay isn't very much. I agree with you on the higher pay and all. Why then was the Obama care for all of us and not for federal employees?

And I guess I am wrong. I thought and have been told that the senators get free healthcare premiums. I would still appreciate a family healthcare plan for $432/ month instead of our 1795, but the company changed plans and now it's down to 1500.

I apologize for my mis information! I've NEVER been wrong before! ahahhahahahahaa

The problem is the inflated cost of health care and prescription drugs -- making health insurance necessary.

The reason these costs are so inflated in America is because a person can't get elected without a huge campaign fund -- and the hospital, medical, insurance and pharmacutical companies provide the campaign funds, i.e, Buy Congress.

We permit huge profits to be made by largely useless last-ditch measures to make a dying person survive another three months. Hospitals are profitable. Nursing homes are profitable. Prescription drugs are profitable. (We are the only nation to permit advertising for *prescription* meds -- other than NZ, for some odd reason.) All of these profits mean you need *insurance*! All these industries want this to continue, and GROW.

We might start to reform health care (and a lot of other abuses) by limiting election campaigns to permitted costs within a limited timeframe, as is done in other countries. A lovely side-effect would free us from electioneering for two years prior to an election. A legislator might find time to *legislate* if he didn't have to continually raise money to stay in office.

"Two years prior to an election ...."?

Would you buy, "four"?

It costs such huge amounts just to run for many nominations, let alone in the election campaign itself.

That money must come from somewhere - and it ain't primarily in small contributions from the pockets of millions of electors. Actually, that was a large part of the way that the Obama campaign developed the early strength, at least, in that campaign, wasn't it, using the internet?

We in Canada had a system put in place a few years ago where the various parties received a small amount of federal money ($1.75 - $2.00, I think) for each vote received in the prior election ... but that's been shot down by some who got all hot and bothered by the idea that some taxpayers would be forced to support a political ideology with which they disagreed. But ... wait a minute: wasn't that subsidy the same for each vote cast, and directed to the parties in direct proportion to the number of votes that they received?

Oh, now I get it: the poor (still) get a vote, but pay small tax loads ... and the rich only get one vote ... but pay more taxes.

They do?

Are you sure?

Like ... Warren Buffett recently said that it didn't seem fair that his secretary paid a higher percentage of her income in taxes than he did.

It's the middle class that pay the predominant share of the income tax ...

... and the middle class is being hollowed out, as a few get a lot richer, and quite a large number are slipping down to join the peons.

And the governments in the western world are running scared.

ole joyful

Not too long ago a poster at the Meeting House posted her first hand experience with the system in Norway. She lives there. It was a real eye opener to many. She pays a lot out of pocket to insure her family gets decent health care.

Me? I want to move away from socialism as much as possible,not move toward it.

gibby-
That's an unfortunate situation in Queensland, but I think it has no relevance to the overall merits of managed healthcare. There have been much bigger scandals in the U.S. with how money gets spent in our own, patchwork system.

I happen to have friends and relatives who have healthcare provided by government-managed programs in a number of foreign countries, and it is far superior to the expensive mess we have here. This includes Canada, Germany, France, Norway, Japan, and Australia. Essentially everyone is covered, there is no such thing as a pre-existing condition that will prevent you from being treated, the premiums are modest, and no one has to go bankrupt due to a catastrophic illness. When I talk to my friends and relatives, they find our opposition to universal healthcare coverage in this country to be inexplicable. And I don't want to be told about people having care rationed under these systems or waiting months or years for an operation, because it's generally not true. There may be a wait for a non-urgent, elective procedure, but serious problems get addressed. One example: my 24 year old daughter who lives and works in Canada and has full healthcare coverage for $54/month. She had a physical three weeks before leaving for a 3-month trip to Asia. The doctor found something that needed to be immediately addressed and she was scheduled for major surgery within a week. The operation went as planned, she's fine, and she was able to recover in time to go on the trip. As I recall, the total bill was $8 for some pain meds.

People in most other industrialized countries consider quality healthcare a right that they shouldn't have to worry about, and expect their governments to provide it. It's only in this country that we accept private healthcare companies enriching themselves at our expense by paying their CEO's tens of millions of dollars, draining off huge portions of our premium money for "expenses" rather than actual medical services, and denying people coverage when they most need it.

There are aspects of medicine in this country that are the best in the world, but most of us do not need cutting edge treatment every time we visit a doctor. What we need is competent, quality, and affordable care, and to be reassured that they can't take it away from us if we are unlucky.

This is a wonderful country, but it is not the best in every thing, and particularly in providing our citizens with healthcare. Those who think it is unquestionably superior need to see what the rest of the world offers its citizens. I was unfortunate enough to have an accident on a train in France several years ago. When we reached the next small town, there was an ambulance waiting, I was admitted to a hospital, examined, X-rayed, stitched up, and released in 4 hours. And it was free. Oh, and it was even a national holiday, too.

My Spanish exchange student last year said it was awful in her country. Long waits to see the doctor, or have surgery. And the country is going bankrupt.

Having worked for 25 years in the federal health care delivery/finance arena, I am aware of our system's good and bad points. It can be fixed; unfortunately, our elected officials are more interested in lining their pockets than taking care of the sick and elderly in this country. Furthermore, they don't want to take any actions that might adversely affect their campaign contributions or cost them votes.

Our problem is not with doctors or hospitals, but rather with elected officials and lawyers. And if you think it's bad now, just wait until all the baby boomers reach Medicare age!!

I read the linked article about Queensland Health. That is now the sum total of what I know about healthcare in Australia... well, really only one State in the country of Aus. I don't comprehend how anyone could read that single article & draw *any* sort of conclusion or correlation to current or proposed healthcare in the USA.

I do understand that it is not an uncommon attitude: "I've got mine. I don't care if you don't have yours."

The point of my posting was just to provide an actual piece of information regarding a government run health care system. As I said, some government run health care systems might be good. The correlation between Queensland Health and the US is that I think the US federal government is also a large bloated, inefficient, ineffective bureaucracy run by elected officials in what I think is a sophisticated system of corruption (contribute to my campaign and get me reelected and I'll take care of your interests vs. the overall greater good of the country and its people).

All that is just my opinion but it contributes to my belief that our federal government is unlikely to fix our problems with access to affordable health care. I work in the health care industry and I see A LOT of cost added all over the place by health care organizations trying to respond to constantly changing government regulatory and reimbursement requirements. Yes, there are costs related to for profit companies that provide products and service in our capitalist economy. However there are also big costs, both in time and money, related to government requirements that are questionable in terms of the value they add for individual patients. Maybe in time the benefits will become more apparent if the government intervention actually turns the ship around.

All I know is, 13 months ago a hearing test indicated I had a neurological problem. Since then I've had three MRI's, two CT scans and one brain surgery. I'm pending a second surgery (two brain tumours). I have a neurosurgeon and a neurologist, and there are no rules about which facilities or which medical professionals I can use. I got in to see my NS within five weeks of the referral, a couple of other people in my support group had a more urgent need and were admitted for surgery. We do not have to consider expense and we will not lose our house. No, the system isn't perfect; no system is. But I'm very grateful for our health care system here in Canada. I'm going to have life long issues, but my health care will be covered

kathsgrdn-
I'm sure there are problems with healthcare in a number of industrialized, foreign countries, so I'm not disputing what you say about Spain. But I don't know if you meant that simply as a point of information, or as an argument against government involvement. Healthcare systems vary widely from country-to-country. I was simply saying that there are quite a few elsewhere in the world that seem to work pretty well, and we ignore what they can teach us to our detriment. We've had three exchange students from three different European countries, and all three were quite happy with their care in their home countries. I'd argue that all of our examples simply illustrate that a good system with government involvement works better than a bad system with government involvement. And, further, that more government involvement than we have had in this country can produce a better result for the majority of people if it's done right.

I, personally have very good healthcare coverage, but it is expensive and it hasn't always been easy to navigate the system. My daughter living in Canada pays $54/month for coverage that goes for about $500/month in this country...I know because I shopped around when she was still a U.S. resident and couldn't be covered any more under my policy. And Canada is certainly not going broke, nor do they have budget problems like we do, such as the housing mess.

Real health care reform in this country has been stymied by politicians, healthcare companies, and their lobbyists who have a lot to lose financially if we have a more efficient system providing better service to people at a better price. They've done a pretty good job of convincing people that we have the greatest healthcare system on earth (so we shouldn't tamper with it), and of scaring them about all the horrible things that would supposedly happen if we adopted some of the practices that have been successfully used elsewhere in the world.

I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm just providing a counter perspective to the subject line that started this thread: "for those who think more gov't in US healthcare would be good." I guess my response is actually... yeah...it would be good if we could get a fairer, more sensible system in place, that people didn't have to worry about all the time.