I Might Back a National Health Insurance Program if....

Part of the problem with the current health care system is the people who choose not to have health insurance but expect to be given health care when they need it. No one can be turned away from a hospital emergency room. If no one is required to have health insurance, why would any one pay for it? Just walk into an emergency room and demand care and let the people who have insurance pay for their care and for the other person's care. Unless you are willing to deny health care to those people without insurance, then there must be some form of universal coverage-both voluntary and involuntary.

I am not sure what you are limiting or restricting here. The way that it works in the UK (and a number of other countries) is that everyone who works or is on unemployment benefit (currently called 'Jobseeker's Allowance') is required to contribute to the National Health Insurance scheme. Anyone who employs them is also required to contribute on that person's behalf so that contributions are made on the basis of a person's earnings, with the employer - whether they be private, corporate, public, service or whatever - making the larger contribution. In the UK, at least, these contributions go to fund the National Health Service and also (primarily from the point of view of the individual) the State/National Pension and Unemployment Benefit. Everyone who is a UK national and many people, including visitors, are, as a result, entitled to a basic level of health care. We have a reciprocal agreement with other members of the EU so that basic health care is available to UK nationals in other EU countries. If you are not satisfied with the NHS or require treatment that is not covered by it, you are, of course, at liberty to pay for things that the NHS can't provide. You may either do this by paying cash or by taking out insurance to cover 'going private'. My understanding is that health care in the UK (and Europe) is rather variable and that some areas are less well provided than others. This would certainly be the case in the US, since health care would inevitably vary from state to state and, since some areas of some states are less populated than others, would almost certainly mean some hardship under a national health care scheme. As I understand your present system (which may vary from state to state), emergency services are particularly poor and dependent on an individual's possesion of insurance (or lack of it). Our NHS would, typically, treat first and ask questions later. I believe that this is certainly not the case everywhere in the US. In the UK it is possible to opt out of some National Insurance payments if your employer is providing a private retirement scheme. Some deductions are still required, however, ostensibly to fund medical treatment under the NHS. Many corporate employers also provide medical insurance as a benefit, though only for the duration of the employment. The system prevailing in the US (and in many other countries) is so different from ours that I can understand that there would be a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about the way it should work and how it impacts individuals and employers. You may think of it as a socialist/Marxist system but it has survived (with approval) under both socialist and conservative regimes and it is noticeable, perhaps, that it is under the latest Labour/Socialist governments that any 'privatisation' has been discussed and implemented. Our governments, since 1947, have all been in favour of the principle of 'free' health care for all. I don't know the history of other countries, such as Canada, but I think you will find that, in all countries that have dared to implement it, it has been a not unqualified success ... certainly enough so that nobody would dare return to the kind of system that you currently have in the USA.

I asked you a question about unions and private insurers in your other discussion but I guess you haven't gotten to it yet. How would it be possible to make invalid, valid contracts that unions currently have which include a benefits package? Wouldn't invalidating a union contract leave the door wide open for forced renegotiations with the company in other areas? Another question for you. If the people who don't want medical insurance don't have to get it, who pays for their medical bills when they end up in the ER or rack up high medical bills for other reasons? Aren't we right back to where we started in that area?

Ted, please explain to me why it is that you want people to have the right to "choose" not to have health insurance. But, everyone that drives a vehicle in this country is forced to have auto insurance. The reason that Obama wants everyone to have health insurance is because he was told by the experts that the uninsured are costing the system billions a year. If everyone had insurance than it would make the jobs of doctors much easier, and would lead to more health Americans, which would actually save the country money. I do agree that we need to change the health care system for all elected officals, they have the best health care in the world, at our expense.

I'm sorry, but this sounds a little hypocritical to me. You want groups of people that you dislike and distrust to be FORCED to do something but you want everyone else to have the choice? Come on. Can we at least PRETEND to act like mature human beings here? Honestly, I think you do not have a very thorough understanding of the proposed medical reforms based on this post. The insurance companies right not are eating people alive. What makes you think that having your health decisions controlled by insurance companies - greedy men sitting in an office somewhere - is better than whatever reforms the government could bring?

how funny