We Don't Need Health Insurance, We Need Guaranteed Healthcare For All

[Better Believe It]

ON THE ROAD TO SINGLE PAYER: POST-ELECTION ACTIVISM RISING WITH HOPE
By Donna Smith
November 22, 2008

CHICAGO -- While other devoted election workers and issue activists were taking a much deserved breather following the November 4th general election and planning their trips to celebrate their success in Washington in January, single payer healthcare reform activists stepped up their energy levels and gathered twice in national formations within just 10 days after the historic election of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States.

The Leadership Conference for Guaranteed Healthcare met in Washington, DC, on November 10th and 11th, with leaders from the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee along with other labor organizations, faith-based groups, Healthcare-Now, Progressive Democrats of America, medical students, Physicians for a National Health Program and representatives from more than 20 diverse organizations.

Just three days later, in Chicago (see above), the committed activists from Healthcare-Now convened their 2008 National Strategy Conference with representatives from 23 states and the District of Columbia to pull together the various states organizations and member coalitions of Healthcare-Now and map out the immediate efforts to support HR676, Rep. John Conyers' national single payer bill. Single payer is the publicly funded, privately delivered healthcare reform plan that addresses and repairs the lack of access and affordability issues facing millions of Americans.

Rep. Conyers attended both national meetings. He assured both the group assembled in Washington and the folks gathered in Chicago that he will reintroduce HR676 in the 111th Congress and that his support is stronger than ever for the bill.

http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/blog/donna-smith-sicko-patient/2008/11/22/on-road-single-payer-post-election-activism-rising-with-ho

?

[Delphinus]

1. Yes to Universal Health CARE

NO to Health INSURANCE.

Too many people know first hand that just because you have health insurance does not guarantee health CARE.

[cabluedem]

41. True. They can deny treatment for pre-existing conditions, whatever they think that is. nt

[boobooday]

2. Nobody should profit from denying care to sick people

That's what insurance companies do.

YES to Universal Healthcare!

[Cleita]

3. K&R

[Demeter]

4. K&R K&R K&R K&R

Wish I could!

[Joe Chi Minh]

5. Precisely, your whole political and commercial cultures are too corruptly

entwined for anything less. The French, I believe, were able to get a grip of their insurance (and presumably, domestic and foreign pharmaceutical) companies. But with insurance in the US, even if the companies concerned were sorted out, it wouldn't be long before the Usual Suspects vitiated it, if not eviscerated it. Blair set in train a process of back-door privatisations in our NHS, which is still marvellous in many ways.

I know someone who has regular medical check-ups with her GP and local hospitals for hernia, diabetes, prolapses, incipient osteoporosis, varices on the liver - you name it - including ultra-sounds, and x-rays, for which conditions she receives food supplements and tablets galore, all free of charge. They wanted her to have a full body-scan, but she couldn't bear the thought of that, so went under a kind of arch-shaped gizmeter, which worked in a similar way. I imagine in the US, she would have to pay tens of thousands of dollars each year for it all. Or pay through the nose for insurance, and then be cheated.

[AllyCat]

6. In a just and civil society, health care should not be for profit

Get insurance out of the equation!

[Lex]

8. I agree.

nt

[Yellow Horse]

12. HealthCARE not Health Insurance. Everybody in, nobody out.

No exclusions, pre-exisiting conditions, cover dental, long term care, eyes, etc.

NO profit to insurance companies and their CEOs any more. To HELL with them where they deserve to go.

[kestrel91316]

17. I support profits for the people actually involved in delivering care and

actually manufacturing drugs and medical devices. Doctors and nurses need to make a living. So do maunufacturers.

Profits for "gatekeepers", bureaucrats, and people whose job is to DENY coverage - HELL, NO!!! All hospitals should be nonprofits.

[eridani]

50. The non-profit part applies to insurance

Like the interstate highway system, for which the government paid the bills but hired private contractors to do the work.

[RC]

28. Absolutely. Insurance is the problem.

How can the insurance companies properly defend the obscene bonuses, golden parachutes, corporate jets and other perks of their high living upper management when people are dying for lack of basic health care?

[harun]

52. Agree, for-profit insurers do NOTHING to improve care or make it available

to more people.

[Mark D.]

54. Conyer's Plan

Is a lot like Kucinich's plan. I like the idea of the simplicity of it. Dennis made clear, we pay 2.2 trillion a year now for socialized medical programs that only cover some people. Put it all into one simplified plan that covers every American, period. Health, Dental, Vision, Chiro and long term care. No copays, deductibles or premiums. It would costs about the same 2.2 trillion. Additional taxes, if needed, would be less per person than the average person pays now for health premiums.

The ability to focus on prevention, the massive simplification of the system could cut costs so much it would eliminate the need for extra taxes. The healthier folks getting regular checkups would discover a cheaply treatable illness, or get on a plan to get healthy and save a lot over ER treatment later. We are supposed to be the greatest nation on earth. Can't we pull it off? The reduced stress alone, and fewer bankruptcies would be hugely beneficial, as would be the massive amount of extra money the middle class would have to spend and boost the economy.

Question the patriotism of the next 'not with my tax dollars' jerk who is so stupid and self centered as to prefer paying thousands of dollars more a year for the same failing system we have now, happy to know none of that will help others he/she (usually he) would see as 'less deserving'. Yes, usually he. Notice in the debates when Obama mentioned covering more people - how the independent vote meter on CNN would spike for women, and decline for men. Shameful.

People so self-centered, they'd rather pay more to know 'freeloaders' which they envision ANYONE who needs a helping hand (even if deserving of it, as most are) get screwed. Enough of them. Enough of those Joe the Plumbers more concerned about the 'game' and the 'score' than the well being of others. More willing to invest in beer and an SUV than anything that anyone but he and his family profits from. They're un-American and not the 'ideal example' of America the GOP wants them to be.

Enough of this praise of ignorance and idiocy and self-centered self-preservation where care for anything more than their direct family and self is all that matters. No, you don't get brownie points for taking care of the 5 kids you have. No, you're supposed to do that. You benefit from it. It is the care for those you don't know, but still your fellow Americans, fellow humans, who you may not profit from. You do profit. When they live, and thrive, to contribute to the tax base.

To not be foreclosed upon and lower the value of your house too if you're in the same neighborhood. You get the idea. Though that shouldn't be your motivating factor, it should be altruism. You know, what Christ spoke most about, opposed to what he never spoke about (abortion, gays, guns, etc.) which those self-appointed moralists prefer to focus on to ignore the previous and portray themselves falsely as 'Christian' and 'Moral'. Freedom for them means 'freedom from caring'.

[frogcycle]

7. k/r

telling it like it is

the paranoia about "the government deciding what care you get" is just that.

The only thing that needs to be worked out is how to control abuses when some small minority demand care they truly don't need. This is a legitimate concern, and if it were to be implemented improperly, we could end up with "the government" behaving like the insurance companies do now - withholding care that is actually needed and appropriate.

Currently Medicare pays for some rather herculean efforts to prolong life in the terminally ill elderly. Whether it is appropriate for tax dollars to pay hundreds of thousands for various procedures for someone in their late 80's or even in their 90's is certainly open to discussion.

I'd like to understand how such decisions will be made in a single-payer system.

[demodonkey]

11. My uncle received a heart operation at 86 and is now back to volunteering 5 days a week...

...guess it would have been more "cost effective" to let him die because he is old, huh?

NO ONE should deny care to anyone who wants to live and try to get better. Do that and we are nothing more than a nation of total barbarians.

We can pay 700 billion to further enrich Wall Street CEOs but we can't pay anything for some 90 year-old who doesn't want to die yet, because the "effort" is "herculean"? We can pay a billion every day and an half or so (whatever it is now) in Iraq but we can't provide long term care for the disabled and elderly who need it without taking all their income and everything they worked for all their life??

We just need to take care of this. Pay for it. Seems that we have money for everything else.

[frogcycle]

46. If you actually read what I wrote

you'd see that I was careful not to take a position. So don't jump down my throat, ok? My point was that these issues WILL be a topic of conversation, and it could get dicey.

For every general position ever taken on anything, there is someone with an anecdote to contradict it. Just look at the stories about people trapped in burning cars by seatbelts that are used as excuses to never wear seatbelts.

I want single-payer healthcare, covering everyone, period. Better to overtreat a few here and there than to develop an onerous bureacracy to prevent same. There WILL be a need for some sort of control, though, and it will be very difficult to define.

[Odin2005]

9. Healthcare should be a basic human right guaranteed to all people. Period. n/t.

[MNDemNY]

10. Commie.

;)

[gcomeau]

13. Guaranteed *how*?

If you're not providing the care with single payer insurance coverage, how ARE you providing it? What exactly are you proposing? Do you have any clue what kind of system would be required to do what you are apparently insisting needs to be done?

[demodonkey]

14. With single-payer we'd spend LESS and get MORE care!

We'd make a big dent in the Big Three Carmakers' problems and in the budget crisis for a lot of states and municipalities.

This is such a no-brainer. But the USA is known lately for having no brains.

[gcomeau]

25. Yes... I know.

But the Op said specifically that we do not need Insurance, which is what single payer IS. So I'd like to know what we do need if not that.

[demodonkey]

26. We need to get rid of the profit-driven private insurance model the USA uses now.

Single-payer is NOT that.

The organization behind Guaranteed Healthcare for All IS working for single-payer BTW.

[gcomeau]

27. Now you're just being confusing.

Single payer is not the profit driven model we use now? Or single payer is not getting rid of the profit driven model we use now?

If the former, yes... once again... I know. But I was replying to the OP. And the OP said we don't need insurance. Single payer IS insurance.

If the latter you've just lost me completely.

[demodonkey]

29. Here in the US a lot of us see "insurance" as meaning the for-profit, messed up system we have now.

Our USA health insurance system, as you no doubt know, does pretty much everything it can to avoid providing CARE that eats too much into their profits. So the single-payer supporters (of which I am one) have adopted the motto Healthcare, not Health Insurance.

I am sorry if it is unclear to you, but please know we DO mean single-payer. The link and article OP put up is from a group that is a huge supporter of single-payer.

[kestrel91316]

18. We could ask the Canadians or Europeans how they manage to

accomplish what you seem to think is impossible.

FYI - the health insurance industry swallows up 30% - yes, that's THIRTY PERCENT!!!!! - of our healthcare dollars. If we eliminate that, those dollars go a lot farther.

[gcomeau]

24. We already know how they manage.

You happen to be speaking to a Canadian. It's done with universal COVERAGE. ie. Insurance. Which is also what you just appeared to be speaking of.

The OP was saying we DON'T need universal coverage, but rather universal CARE. Clearly there is some significant difference that is supposed to exist there since they went out of the way to distinguish between the two. If we're not supposed to be providing care through universal coverage like a single payer system then I'd like to know what the heck we are supposed to be doing.

[BrklynLiberal]

49. I believe the OP was trying to distinguish between something that has to be paid

for by each person, I.E. HEALTH INSURANCE, as opposed to coverage that everyone would be entitled to, I.E. HEALTH CARE. It would be paid for and administered by the govt via our taxes. There should be no more need for private payment to doctors, hospitals, or insurance companies, and therefore there should be no more 30% overhead that the insurance companies make in profit.

Here is a good explanation..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4520626&mesg_id=4521005

[Mark D.]

55. They Do Well

As Michael Moore's 'Sicko' points out, despite worse lifestyles (smoking, etc.) the French and British live longer than we do. They have universal healthcare, and that is largely why. Not entirely why, but a big part of it. Real prevention, not co-pays so freaking high you don't bother to go to the doctor for 'small pains' that turn into catastrophically expensive things later. Stuff gets nipped at the bud, and thus health care costs are lower per person.

[global1]

15. We Need To Keep This Topic On The Front Burner Here At DU - K&R.....

here's a link to more discussion on this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4507724

[demodonkey]

22. DU Needs a HEALTHCARE REFORM Forum... not just a "Health" Forum where they discuss vitamins, etc. nt

[undeterred]

16. Health Insurance companies want a guarantee too

and it seems like some politicians have been promising them one. As far as I am concerned we should cover everyone and cut out the totally unnecessary expense of health insurance, which brings us billing for individual pills and bandaids. They don't do that in Canada, and they spend a lot less than the US.

[TankLV]

19. Yes - we OWN the LARGEST INSURANCE company now - time to "sunset" it...

time to let it slide into oblivion...

Time to ELIMINATE one of the biggest obsticals to providing BASIC HUMAN NEEDS FOR ALL!!!

If not now, WHEN?!!!

[RC]

32. If our "leaders" are comfortable with putting 3 million people out of work

by not helping the Big 3, why are not comfortable doing the same to the health insurance companies?
Nationalize Health Care and hire the needed people from the defunct health insurance companies. Put the rest on unemployment. That would save hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

[rhett o rick]

20. Un-privatize health care. It is absurd for health care to be "for profit". nm

[harun]

53. Insurance companies are already looking for ways to make MORE

profit off of this:

http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/newsanalysis/healthcare/10449767.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA

[SmileyRose]

21. I completely disagree with you . COMPLETELY - seriously

I just don't agree with the "guaranteed healthcare for all" mindset. I just don't. It fosters running to a doctor for every sniffle and giving people the idea that the government should have it's ass sued off if they don't approve a heart lung transplant for a 93 yr old person who smoked 70 years.

Yes, I believe strongly in access to basic medical, dental and mental health care for everyone. However, just because someone thinks they have a right to an MRI doesn't mean that's the most cost effective way to treat the problem. I guess I'm just saying I want people to think of medical care as an expensive commodity. There is going to be rationing of some sort. It will come in the form of choosing who gets what, how long we wait, and even what options are available. Other countries that do this have found a way to get better overall health of their citizens for far less money spent - but it's not without it's issues. In France, the doctors and nurses are up in arms often regarding the pay structure. In Britain, costs are becoming a major problem and obesity seems to be raising. In some areas of Canada, wait times are becoming an issue. I want "socialized" medicine of some form, it's a MUCH better system than this corporate predator system we have now. But I don't want us to think in terms of "guarantees".

[Yellow Horse]

23. Hey Rose, guess what? There already IS rationing in this country!! Ask one of the...

...47 million uninsured how much "choice" they get in their healthcare right now.

Most of what you say in your post is the anti-single payer RW kool-aid. Taste good??

[SmileyRose]

42. You didn't bother to read the post.

Your knee jerk aside, yes, there is rationing now and there will be under socialized medicine in some way. We NEED socialized medicine. We do not need to tell Americans this equals "guaranteed healthcare". IMHO we only hurt the process of showing America socialized medicine is better by telling everyone who wants a particular medical procedure they can have it no questions asked.


With 300 million plus Americans - 50 million with no medical coverage at all. Another 70 million with coverage they can't afford to use. That leaves 150 Million with decent medical coverage. Probably half of those are going to be in great plans that use a variety of methods to keep costs down. They are used to being told this new fancy drug or this new fancy treatment is likely not as effective as this cheaper and older method. They are used to being told ice and rest a little Advil is just as good as $200 a month Celebrex - or $12 a month generic Omeprazole works just as great for chronic heartburn most of the time as $300 a month Nexium. They will need some work but they are reachable.

That still leave 75 million Americans who have great coverage and generally get what they want. These are naturally going to be upper income people, generally republicans. We aren't going to successfully get socialized medicine without them on board. Telling them the socialized system will support Nexium and Celebrex and cutting edge PET scans for everyone is unrealistic. "Guarantee" should not be part of the discussion.

[bobbolink]

31. You're sooo very right. That's why every other developed country has so many problems with

providing health care for all their citizens. People are just sooo nasty that they always take advantage.

So, they ration it and end up with poor health care...

Oh wait....all the other countries spend MUCH LESS than the U.S. and have MUCH BETTER health care... the U.S. ranks 37 in the world!

Ohmy... I guess your assertion of how bad people ruin everything just doesn't hold water.

You know, Thom Hartmann was saying that the difference between the Right Wing and the Left Wing is that the Right assumes that everyone is "bad" and has to be forced to be "good." The Left wing assumes that people are basicallly good, and just need to have their needs met so they can be as good as humanly possible.

You might want to consider that a topic for meditation.

[bicentennial_baby]

33. You should take a course in Health Economics

While moral hazard is an issue with single-payer national healthcare, there are many ways to keep costs down. Rationing does happen in countries such as Germany, Canada, England, and Japan, but overall, their systems are far more efficient and people are healthier.

:)

[SmileyRose]

40. You said the same thing I did in different words - we agree.

As I said, we need a socialized system. They get better outcomes at much lower cost.

In the US we already have many many Americans with a "me" attitude. Switching to a collective medical care attitude will be much harder IMHO, if we start tossing around the mindset of "guaranteed medical care".

[SoCalDem]

37. aaah.. the "wait time" meme for canadian care

the "wait time" you reference is for SOME services.. NON-essential services...just like it is here in the good ole Yooessay..

It was a 7 WEEK wait for my husband to see an endocrinologist to have his diabetes evaluated.. My son waited almost 8 MONTHS for his back surgery..

No one with urgent medical needs is made to "wait"..here or in Canada..

It's true that rich people in Canada may CHOOSE to come to the Yooessay , where there are clinics & specialty hospitals (see Mayo, Cleveland, etc) where MONEY TALKS...but that is THEIR choice.. Rich people never want to wait their turn..That's no indictment of their health care system...just of impatient rich people.:)

[eridani]

51. And people in the US choose to go the other way to get basic care

http://www.healthcareforallwa.org/helpline/

[Better Believe It]

30. The United States National Health Insurance Act HR 676

The United States National Health Insurance Act

How it would help!

HR 676 establishes an American-styled national health insurance program. The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care program that uses the already existing Medicare program by expanding and improving it to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S. territories. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that all Americans, guaranteed by law, will have access to the highest quality and cost effective health care services regardless of ones employment, income, or health care status.
With over 45-75 million uninsured Americans, and another 50 million who are under insured, it is time to change our inefficient and costly fragmented health care system.
Physicians For A National Health Program reports that under a Medicare For All plan, we could save over $286 billion dollars a year in total health care costs.
We would move away from our present system where annual family premiums have increased upwards to $9,068 this year.
Under HR 676, a family of three making $40,000 per year would spend approximately $1600 per year for health care coverage.
Medicare for All would allow the United States to reduce its almost $2 trillion health care expenditure per year while covering all of the uninsured and everybody else for more than they are getting under their current health care plans.
In 2005, without reform, the average employer who offers coverage will contribute $2,600 to health care per employee (for much skimpier benefits).
Under HR 676, the average costs to employers for an employee making $30,000 per year will be reduced to $1,155 per year; less than $100 per month.

Who is Eligible!

Every person living in the United States and the U.S. Territories would receive a United States National Health Insurance Card and identification number once they enroll at the appropriate location. Social Security numbers may not be used when assigning identification. cards. No co-pays or deductibles are permissible under this act.

Health Care Services Covered!

This program will cover all medically-necessary services, including primary care, inpatient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long term care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment. Patients have their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals, clinics, and practices. Medicare will be improved and everybody will get it.

Conversion to A Non-Profit Health Care System!

Private health insurers shall be prohibited under this act from selling coverage that duplicates the

benefits of the Medicare for All program.

Cost Containment Provisions/Reimbursement

The Medicare for All program will annually set reimbursement rates for physicians, health care providers; and negotiate prescription drug prices. The national office will provide an annual lump sum allotment to each existing Medicare region, which will then administer the program. Payment to health care providers include fee for service, and global budgets. Doctors will be paid based on their current reimbursement rates. The conversion to a not-for- profit health care system will take place over a 15 year period, through the sale of U.S. treasury bonds;

Administration!

The United States Congress will establish annual funding outlays for the Medicare for All program through an annual entitlement, to be administered by the Medicare program. A U. S. National Health Insurance Advisory Board will be established, comprised primarily of health care professionals and representatives of citizen health advocacy groups.

Proposed Funding

Maintaining current federal and state funding of existing health care programs! A modest payroll tax on all employers and employees of 3.3% each. A 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners. A small tax on stock and bond transfers. Closing corporate tax loop-holes, and repealing the Bush tax cut for the highest 1% of income earners.

[RC]

34. I see a problem not addressed here.

Medicare is administered by the states. In red states like North Dakota, Medicare is administered by Republicans, Conservatives, whatever you want to call them. These people go out of their way to make it difficult to get needed services. I was exposed to this big time when I was trying to get my blind, wheelchair bound Dad into a Home. I felt I was being treated like a criminal trying to work the system. They lie to you. They ask for information and when you supply it, they use it against you. They twist things. "misinterpret" things. They refused to admit my dad till they took all of his assets and ran up a $1640.00 bill on top of that. One idiot even tried to tell me us kids were responsible for that bill. That phone call ended shortly after that when I called him on that and then I started in on something else he had said. This is what they do.

[SoCalDem]

38. Medicaid is state operated..medicare is federal

and unfortunately, to be in a "home" and have the state pay for it, they DO require "need".. This is why I advocate that parents sign over their "property" to their children, well before they become incapacitated, if they plan to pass the assets on to them.. Many states have a 4 year "window", just to prevent having to pay for care for someone who could "afford it"..

[RC]

39. My Dad was well outside that window. They got it anyway.

They interpret the rules. If you don't like it, you don't get any help.
It is a con game played by professionals against an honest family just looking to take care of a family member in need.

How did they get it? Just by running up the debt for his care in the Home till the assets were all gone, then running it into the hole. If our mother was still alive, then she would have to pay the $16,400 debt. As it was they tried to get us kids to pay it.
I said $1640 before. No, it is $16,400.

[Mark D.]

56. Medicare

As far as I know, still has AETNA cooking - oops - I mean 'doing' the books. AETNA was founded by the grandfather of the most destructive banker in US History, JP Morgan. JP was born in Hartford, the 'insurance capital' of America. They have been a leading voice in the battle against not for profit single player health care. They pushed hard against the Clinton plan.

The new plan is to act like they favor universal care, but 'keep it for profit (private)'. Privatized profit got us into this and many other messes. A govt truly by the people and for the people that is properly represented where ALL lobbying is made ILLEGAL would be trusted to run that program better with our tax dollars and really cover everyone. It's time. We can do this.

[Vinca]

35. That sounds heavenly. Even Medicare as it exists now is worthless.

Most seniors end up paying a fortune for supplemental coverage on top of the Medicare premium. We dropped our coverage 4 years ago when it hit $12,000 with a $5,000 deductible. It's scary to know if you get seriously ill you will need to make the decision to seek treatment and go bankrupt, potentially dying and leaving your family on the street, or just allowing yourself to die and skip the family on the street part.

[Greyhound]

36. K & R

There's 20.

We will have to fight and scream loudly if we are going to stop the reich-wing "centrist" promoters of all things corporate, it we don't we'll just end up in a worse position and poverty will end up further criminalized by some required insurance program.

[LWolf]

43. GREAT to hear that HR 676 isn't going away.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

:kick:

[jesus_of_suburbia]

44. I couldn't agree more with you. Healthcare for EVERY SINGLE PERSON in the US.

No IFS, ANDS, or BUTS about it.


No qualifications.


No lengthy process.


FREE for ALL.

[Vroomfondel]

45. K&R

"If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to heal people" -Tony Benn, Labour MP

[Laelth]

47. Amen. n/t

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth

[BrklynLiberal]

48. Healthcare should be everyone's right, not the privilege of those that can afford it..

As was stated in an earlier post, we are 37th in the world when it comes to the level of healthcare.

There are those who complain about the potential tax increase, but that would certainly be less than the combination
of current health insurance premiums + current medical costs + taxpayer costs for those who qualify for Medicaid + taxpayer
costs of those uninsured that go to hospital emergency rooms.

Ironically, if everyone had access to good and timely health care, eventually the costs would go down. When people are sick and have no insurance they wait until their problem is so bad that the cost of their treatment is much higher than it would have been had they come in sooner. In addition, there is a good chance that the overall health of the population would increase if everyone was able to go to a doctor for preventive medicine, annual checkups or go to the doctor before that cold became pneumonia....without having to worry about the financial burdens involved.

I am also curious as to what the figures are annually for people who have to declare bankruptcy, or lose their houses because of
overwhelming medical bills...bills that in some cases were due to the fact that their insurance company would not cover the treatment that might save their life, or the life of someone they love.

All in all, I cannot imagine a really good, valid argument against universal healthcare. If my neighbor is healthier, then I and my family will be healthier as well.

[Mark D.]

58. Michael Moore

Has addressed the above question already, as has Dennis Kucinich. The leading cause of bankruptcy in America is medical cost related. Eliminate that with not for profit single payer universal coverage and include the massive savings for most taxpayers that premium/copay/deductable free coverage for all medical/dental/vision/chiro/mental/rehab procedures would cause, and you'd see a boom in the middle class like never before. And yes, massive efforts at prevention, and education on how to be healthier (ie. diet, excercise, lifestyle, etc.) and the costs would also go way down as well.

[gorfle]

57. Hear Hear! And no "access", either!

We need universal health care. If we have trillions of dollars for wars and financial bail-outs, we should have universal health care.