The system we have now seems to be causing problems: http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/11/17/pr ... ors.study/

"(CNN) -- Nearly half the respondents in a survey of U.S. primary care physicians said that they would seriously consider getting out of the medical business within the next three years if they had an alternative.... Many said they are overwhelmed with their practices, not because they have too many patients, but because there's too much red tape generated from insurance companies and government agencies."

The study suffers from response bias, but the fact that primary care docs are bailing seems to be pretty well-established; this provides the rationale.

The rising costs of health care under the direction of the US Government will produce three undesired results: higher taxes, cap on wages and fees, or both. I know our health care system can be greatly improved but do not think the best step is to allow the government to come in and tell doctors how to run their business. I'll present what I think are good solutions to our health care problem.

1) Remove regulations that prohibit robust plan options. Citizens should have multiple choices concerning their health whether it be full coverage, catastrophic coverage, 80/20 plans, health savings accounts, or any additional plan that the American innovator can produce. Options allow people of all incomes to be able to buy a health play if they choose (I'll get more into that later). Cost savings options should be available to those who exhibit excellent health choices such as not smoking, not drinking, maintaining a healthy weight, and regular exercise (this would have to a collaboration between fitness clubs and insurance companies). A health care plan should be tied to the individual or family and not the employer (which leads me to my next point).

2) Remove employers from the equation of paying for health care. Do you know part of the reason why we have employee based health care plans and their corresponding problems? If you guessed the government then you are correct. Here is a great blog post by a medical doctor explaining the history of employer based health care and why it should be eliminated ( http://ohiosurgery.blogspot.com/2008/10 ... rance.html ). Citizens that understand the actual costs of their health care would plan. Also, they would make health care cost apart of their budget. Why are we now starting to freak out about health care costs? Recently, more Americans have started paying for their own benefits. We know that health care isn't free but we have never considered the actual costs. In order to have an effective health care industry we must have citizens that are educated on health care provisions and the costs involved. We cannot trust one of the most important aspects of our lives to a few (Washington politicians) and expect the best results. I am sure some of you that post fear you or your spouse losing a job because of the tie to your health care. Removing health care from the employer and tying it to the individual or family removes some of that fear.

3) Seek to phase out Medicare. Our politicians have done a poor job of anticipating the rise in Medicare costs and it is affecting our national budget. The inflated national budget provides a need for government officials to deny doctors full payment for care. The Medicare patient doesn't know this because the doctor is not allowed to bill the patient for the remaining total. Doctors in response have (you guessed it) jacked up the price of their services in order to get the payment they deem acceptable for their services. This produces several problems for other patients. First, it raises the cost of insurance as insurance companies are more likely to pay the higher fees then the government is. Second, it prices many cash paying customers out of care. One doctor may employ several staff members and thus needs sufficient cash not only for himself/herself but also the employees. A doctor will not operate at a loss and thus we can only expect a rise in health care costs as the number of Medicare patients grow. Corporations struggling with the costs of health care have dumped their retirees off on Medicare which is exacerbating the problem. Retirement, a fresh idea shared by Americans, must include the costs of health care. If an individual cannot pay for the costs of health care during his/her retirement then they are not yet adequately prepared for retirement. Removing Medicare from the equation will cause citizens to plan accordingly as opposed to not considering the costs allowing the nation as a whole to foot the bill. A tidbit (http://www.ourfuture.org/fast-fact/2008 ... icare-cost ).

4) Replace Medicaid with a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation. The growing costs of Medicaid present an enormous challenge for states like California. The state by 2010 will face a 28 billion dollar budget deficit if it does not cut costs, raise taxes, or both. Medicaid’s cost puts a strain on many states services (every state). The rising costs of Medicaid to government have caused officials to take the same actions toward doctors as Medicare patients. The doctors in response raise prices. Several posters seem to like the idea of helping out with medical costs for the poor. Well, how about a plan that does that and is tax deductible? Replacing Medicaid with a 501(c)(3) corporation will allow citizens to donate money into a system and receive a receipt for a tax deduction. Also, doctors will have the option of donating part of their time to the organization (they can even do so from their own office) and can deduct the cost of their time. Organizational workers will be able to deduct the cost of their time or receive a salary. The applicants will be allowed to apply for coverage and should be considered based on their income. Also, any type of payment for services will be determined by their income as any individual who can pay a portion of their medical tab should pay. The services will be rendered only to US citizens (dealing partially with our illegal alien issue) and will be eligible for those at the poverty level or retirees that can no longer afford coverage (due to a catastrophic event). The system will allow those who are poor to receive some of the same services as those who can easily afford insurance.

5) Provide tax incentives for doctors and hospital to collaborative on a connected billing system and fee rate. Our medical billing departments are a MESS. Many of them are disconnected with their doctors and do not possess an understanding of costs for services rendered. Have you ever tried to get an upfront cost estimate for a procedure? Good luck as you will find having your teeth pulled as a more enjoyable experience. Doctors and hospitals should be encouraged to collaborate on a national billing system in order to centralize the process and reduce overhead costs. I would not be shocked if thousands of medical billing offices exist across this nation with many of them still following antiquated methods. The collaboration would include an agreed upon pricing system for services rendered which will allow patients to understand the cost of a procedure and plan accordingly. Much of the “shock” factor to medical costs (especially with an 80/20 plan) relates to a hospital visit with no expectation of costs and later finding yourself unexpectedly paying several thousands of dollars. Knowing the costs up front will allow you to determine how to pay for a procedure; consider any cost saving alternatives; or if possible delaying the procedure to raise the funds in full. We walk into stores (Best Buy, Kroger, Wal-Mart) everyday and buy items in which prices stay similar at a national level; the same can happen in the medical industry with the right incentive.

6) Petition colleges to provide free education for doctors, nurses, and health care technicians for the next tens years. The health care problem is a national problem that faces every American and will only get worse if we do not start training more doctors and nurses immediately. The single payer solution does nothing to address this issue. Part of the escalation of costs amongst doctors is a lack of competition for services. The doctor can raise prices and get away with it because there are so few. Have you been to a specialist lately? Unless you are one of the first patients then you will be waiting in a crowded room full of people to see the same doctor. The doctor having to fund a full staff is willing to take on as many patients as possible which means less time with the doctor. I don’t believe I have ever been with a doctor for more than fifteen minutes in the past ten years! If you have significant health issues than the compounded problems of needing additional attention in order to find an adequate solution presents itself. Budding doctors and nurses must tackle the cost of education along with obtaining adequate knowledge for the job. These costs can reach the six figure level and discourages many intelligent Americans from entering the field. If colleges and universities would allow free training of these professionals then we would have a needed influx of physicians able to adequately handle the aging American public. The issue can be resolved in a small period of time and thus schools would not need to continue a generous policy forever (although they could choose to do so). I would discourage government from funding such an education as this will open up the door for other students to present the argument as to why their education should be paid for in full (at the expense of the US taxpayer). Many US universities have endowments exceeding the billion dollar figure. The University of Michigan was recently able to raise 3+ billion dollars from donors. These schools can afford to educate a new generation of medical professionals and given that they might one day urgently need a doctor then it is in their best interest to provide assistance.

7) Allow doctors to charge a significant portion of the procedural cost upfront. The 501(c)(3) corporation would theoretically take care of all the costs for the disadvantaged so then why the need for this policy? The growing problem of illegal aliens drains the medical industry of time, energy, and income. An illegal alien can currently chose not to pay anything for health care, ever. Unlike, you and I as American citizens, the government does not seem interested in tracking these people down and forcing them to pay for services rendered. The government also does not see the need to enforce immigration laws and thus allows these individuals continuous access to our medical system. Finally, many of hospitals and doctors are insanely required by law to treat any patient that walks into their place of business. The last policy would not be considered insane if it were not for the previous problem. A common scenario: an illegal alien walks into an emergency room. The hospital does not charge the patient but treats them in order to comply with the law. The hospital bills the patient but he/she refuses to pay and seeing as how they are not a citizen to begin with the organization cannot tie them to the bill. The hospital will not operate at a profit loss and so who makes up the lost income: the paying US patient! I don’t think someone in our country should be denied access to our system but if they choose to use it then doctors and hospitals should be allowed to charge them a significant (or even 100%) portion upfront. This solution will keep our system from being overloaded with individuals who do not intend on paying for their medical care. The additional paying customers will keep costs low for everyone as organizations will not have to shift costs in order to turn profit. An article detailing the growing number of bankrupt hospitals in an area dominated by illegal aliens ( http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/20 ... -brotman20 )

8 ) Place a cap on all civil law suits. Increase the criminal penalty for negligent care. Frivolous law suits targeted toward medical professionals adds a significant cost to the industry. The medical professionals in response must pay higher insurance rates and obviously pass along those costs to their patients. Capping law suits or requiring the loser to pay in such cases would discourage lawyers from fleecing the medical industry in hopes of padding their pockets. These cases have long passed the point of looking for justice and have become a risk/reward venture for attorneys. In response to placing a cap on monetary damages rendered to the defendant the government can increase the criminal penalty to those who continuously provide negligent care.

The single payer system considers the government first and doctor/patient care second. Health care is not a right or a privilege but a responsibility to members of our society. Rights mapped out in the Declaration of Independence are free and because health care will never be free it must never be considered a right (http://www.bdt.com/pages/Peikoff.html ). Making health care a right forces society to pay for the health care all citizens and non-citizens alike along with forcing doctors to take a set wage provided to them by the system. Citizens are currently free to pay for insurance or to go without insurance if they do not deem it cost effective or have established different priorities. I chose myself at one time not to pay for insurance. A stupid move in hindsight but I chose that option and that free choice is removed with a compulsory single payer system.

The single payer system can produce longer wait times especially if the health care professional/patient ratio is not address. The reduced risk/reward potential of a single payer system may discourage bright Americans from entering the field especially with the potential to obtain other high paying (non-regulated) jobs. Canada’s system will never present an adequate picture for America as we have ten times the population. Our population calls for a massive bureaucracy at least ten times the size of our neighbor to the north. The massive bureaucracy opens the possibility to massive fraud, abuse, and corruption not only to participants but also politicians (who would essentially control the system).

[url]US News & World Report[/url]: We can't have universal health care because it will work too well and people will keep wanting it.

Have you seen the track record of our government lately? What makes you think anything our government does will work well?

Yeah...kinda. course that's what happens when you put people in charge who hate government and think it's a failure. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

Those drugs you take? Probably started with $ from the NIH for starters.

Call me Pollyanna, but I have faith in free elections. I think eventually the government will respond to the will of the people and as we begin to think and vote differently as a country we can expect the government to become more effective. Besides the two party problem, I think the American government still has a strong fundamental base of power derived from the people.

hi sdogg1m!

I am on your side about some things, just not specifically about universal health care. Most doctors who oppose universal healthcare are worried about their own pockets. It is easy to take a self-centered look at policy, but I prefer to look at what is best for everyone involved. Probably why I am a liberal. p.s. I am so out of touch I had to look up that reference to Holiday Inn Express! Hahaha!

Regarding Michael Moore, I agree, one must always be wary of what are presented as facts from a very opinionated source. However, as a physician I simply saw my patients' stories in the film. I know that such stories are real, I see them every day. The idea of people suffering needlessly is painful to me. This is why I cannot reconcile the view that healthcare is not a human right. Is it really right to let people suffer, when we as a nation and as a community have the power to relieve that suffering? You may draw your own conclusions, but I feel that as a society we are at our best when we care for others, and at our worst when we ignore the unacceptable situations of poverty, disease, hunger, etc. that others may endure. I'll come back to this later.


Sure, having affordable plans is key, but so too is requiring people to have a plan. Without universal healthcare the system is still broken. The people who will never decide to get insurance for themselves can still get cancer, get traumatic brain injuries, etc., and who pays the astronomical bills? They are absorbed by the hospital.


Agreed! It just doesn't make sense.


To me, it seems more logical to say, make the government pay actual costs of care. It doesn't make sense to say that since Medicare is not paying well, let's get rid of Medicare. Then who pays for these people's care? Either we still pay for it through jacked up prices because the patients themselves simply never pay the bills, or the patients will not seek care. And having people not seeking care when they need it ends up with catastrophic bills in a situation that has become too far gone to save (which people also can't afford), and it ends up with sick people who aren't being treated. That's unacceptable in our so called 'advanced society'.


Sure, and if people plan right for their mortgages, they'll never go into foreclosure. If they plan their budgets right, they'll never go into credit card debt. Are any of these things ever going to happen? No. At least my plan has a chance of getting everyone covered and paid for! You say you don't trust the government to run any program without corruption and bureaucracy. Well, I don't trust people to plan for the costs of health care. Sure, maybe if the world was made up of GRS readers. But it isn't! There will always be a sizeable segment of 'non-planners'. The people who say "hey, I might die tomorrow, why save for retirement?" Your philosophy says if those people get sick, let them die, or let them suffer the consequences. Not in my book. Under my philosophy no one has to die without proper medical care.


To me it is unacceptable to tell people who are sick or dying to try their luck with charities. Everyone should have access to the same medical care. Everyone. They should not have to rely on donations of time and money, which will never be enough to provide for the need. Doctors already donate their time to help care for the uninsured through free clinics nationwide that are 501(c)3 non profits. This system is obviously not caring for all the people who need help. I used to work at a free clinic. We never had time or resources to see everyone who needed care. We were not providing the standard of care to these people. We had to beg labs and testing facilities to donate services like blood tests and mammograms. Have you ever read anything by Paul Farmer? Probably not, but in his book Pathologies of Power, he makes a convincing argument that the poor deserve a higher standard of care, rather than the lower standard of care that they usually receive, because the poor are more at risk for disease.

Why should you care if the poor are more at risk for disease? They should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make sure they save more money so they stop being poor. I'll take care of myself, they can take care of themselves. Wrong! The poor being sick has implications for you and me, my friend. Do you want to live in a society riddled with tuberculosis, AIDS, hepatitis and other infectious diseases? Do you want to live amongst people infested with scabies, lice, typhoid? I don't think so. You, me, other wealthy folks, and the government all have a vested interest in having healthy citizens. Healthy citizens work harder and work better. Healthy citizens keep you and me healthy, too. And that is just a self-serving look at why keeping poor people healthy is good, for those who cannot be swayed by arguments about helping others because they just don't care about others.


I agree that people should be able to find out the cost of their medical care. I have a very difficult time finding out what any given treatment is going to cost my patients, though I have a vague idea. But you can't have it both ways. If we had universal healthcare, we'd be more likely to standardize billing. Keeping various private insurance companies involved who all negotiate their own prices for every service is the problem with billing. But I don't suppose you'd be interested in the idea of not allowing the insurance companies to negotiate prices, because that would be anti-business.

I think this argument is a little bit silly though. Medical care is not like shopping at Kroger, or to use a more common example, like Burger King. You cannot 'have it your way'. Physicians should be incentivized to provide the most efficient possible care for their patients. We should not expect patients to make decisions on what care they want based on what they can afford. Everyone should get the highest quality care that is cost-effective. You don't place an order when you go to the doctor. The doctor tells you what you need, and you get it. To opt out of treatments or services against medical advice is not in anyone's best interest. Also recall that a lot of people in this country don't have many choices for 'shopping' for medical care. With the physician shortage, doctors are concentrated in areas like NYC and Boston. People should be able to go to the nearest hospital, or whatever doctor they like to see, and expect the highest level of care, and not have to worry about the cost. Why would people want to save money by avoiding recommended medical treatment? I hate that idea. When the fire department comes to your house to save your family from a burning building, you don't ask "hey, how much is this going to cost the town? Would a private fire department be able to rescue us more cheaply? Does the town budget have enough to cover rescuing all of us, or can it only afford to rescue 2 of the 4 of us?" No! The fire department saves the whole family.


To your general idea: yes! Yes ! YES! A resounding yes. As I stated before, I think this is crucial. We cannot institute universal healthcare or any improved healthcare without more healthcare professionals.

However, I think you are attributing several problems to the wrong cause. Insurance companies themselves have a lot to do with patients only getting to see the doctor for 15 minutes, because they do not reimburse for having longer conversations. Also, the fees are set by what the insurance company will pay. As you pointed out before, a physician cannot just charge whatever fee they want, because insurance companies will only pay what they believe the service you provided should be worth, and you cannot charge the patient for the remainder. If you say "but that fee is not enough, I need to charge more than that", the insurance company can say "fine, but our customers will not be able to see you as part of our plan". I think there are a lot of other things escalating costs of healthcare, I don't think doctors raising prices due to lack of competition is one of them. This isn't really related to either single payer/universal healthcare or to private companies, because either way we need to pay for physicians to spend more time with patients and incentivize primary care rather than procedures. I also addressed this issue in my prior post.

See this article for more info:
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/art ... /811110325



Having additional paying customers is another argument for universal healthcare.
Remember though, it is not just illegal aliens who do not pay for healthcare. It is anyone uninsured! So unless you mandate that everyone must have health insurance, we will still have to absorb huge healthcare bills that people do not pay for, and hospitals will still be going bankrupt.
Also, anyone can "choose" not to pay for healthcare, just like you can choose not to pay for other things. This is why people should not be paying for healthcare out of their own pockets. If everyone was covered, then hospitals would always be able to bill for services.


I absolutely agree with you 100%.

You said "The single payer system considers the government first and doctor/patient care second. "

I think in any system the consideration is money first, doctor/patient care second. I'm not really sure what the above statement means.



That is such a sad idea! I am so glad I don't live in a country that actually enforces those kinds of ideals. Now you really have to read Pathologies of Power. It is available free preview on Google Books! Just read. He writes better than I could argue.
http://books.google.com/books/ucpress?i ... =0#PPA5,M1

Even looking at it now I am getting sucked in to reading it all over again. I cannot say it enough. This is a great book.



Doctors are already forced to take the 'wage' that insurance companies are willing to pay. Remember, there is a difference between single payer and socialized medicine. You are blurring the distinction here. In single payer, the hospitals and medical offices are still run privately. In socialized medicine, the government actually runs the hospitals and medical offices and thus physicians are employees of the government.

When people make the 'free choice' to go without insurance, they infringe upon others by risking catastrophic injury or illness which they cannot afford to pay for. That choice is nowhere near free. It can come with a price tag in the hundreds of thousands! And as we've noted numerous times, the rest of us then have to bear the burden of the uninsured. Mr. Peikoff states in the link you provide that when you rely on others to pay for your actions, you make those other people your 'rightless serfs' or 'slaves'. So for the rest of us to keep our inalienable rights, mustn't we require everyone to have health insurance?

I should add that Dr. Peikoff's outlook is upsetting to me. He calls doctors 'traders' and states that universal healthcare will ruin physicians. Interesting idea. I thought doctors would advocate the idea of healthcare for everyone. Unless they are only concerned about financial gain. I don't want my personal doctor to think like Dr. Peikoff or like Ayn Rand. I want my doctor to be compassionate and to give me the best quality care I can get, not without concern for cost effectiveness, but without concern for what I can afford to pay.

For a quicker look on health as a human right, reference the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has been approved by the United States as well as all other members of the General Assembly of the United Nations with a few abstentions.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

i.e. just because some guy on the internet says that there are no rights that are not free, does not make it true.

Please answer this question quinsy, will NHC cost more in taxes, than the premiums we already pay now and will the government go more into debt to provide it?

Based on the best empirical evidence we have, the answer is that the taxes will be less then current premiums, the care will be superior, and the government's fiscal responsibility will really depend on whatever administration is running the show. Alberta was able to fun health care without any debt and minimal taxes, other provinces in Canada ran up big deficits. I'm sure you'll find a mixed bag of for fiscal policies for successful health systems there as well. I certainly understand the hesitation of some posters here to trust the US government in particular since their record has hardly been stellar for the last couple of decades, but I think people are talking about the deficit again and it's only a matter of time before politicians respond.

Alberta also has tons of oil and charges $42 for a 24 pack of beer.

Really? That's insane. You can get a 24 of premium beer (Keith's, Stella, etc.) at Costco in Quebec for $22.

Not really, it's hyperbole.

If we do it right, I suspect it should cost more up front, but more than pay for itself later on in money saved through preventative care. Theoretically, the cost savings of having everyone get good primary care should be huge! (both to the taxpayer personally and to the government) But certainly I would expect any new system, whether it be 'free market reforms' or single payer or whatever, to have a cost, but ideally the cost should be justified by the expected increased savings and efficiency or system improvements that result from the reforms.

Since we are running on a deficit and we can't raise taxes significantly in this economy, we'd have to go into more debt to institute reforms in the near future. However I think many people, including myself and a few others here, do believe that the cause is important/emergent enough to take action now, similar to the way some felt that we should go to war in Iraq despite the costs involved and the debt necessary, due to the potential negative effects of inaction.

I've read this entire thread, and have found a few things interesting.

1. It's possible I missed it, but so far the only arguments I've seen about the "public good" of providing universal healthcare (which is NOT synonymous with socialized medicine) are that it is a moral issue, or a basic right -- or that the insured end up subsidizing the uninsured who can't pay. One recent post did mention the public benefit of not having sick people walking around infecting others. What about the economics of it? Many people think that people either choose not to work or not to better themselves or educate themselves so that they can increase their socioeconomic status (and therefore get health insurance), but what about the people who are unable to work harder or get an education because they are sick and don't have access to health care? As the good doctor pointed out, regular primary care and preventive medicine could help a lot of people who are not getting that care now, and in many cases mild but chronic conditions can be treated easily and enable someone to become healthy enough to work, or work full-time instead of part-time, or work and also go to school to advance themselves. Lack of health care is actually keeping individuals from becoming productive members of the workforce and the economy.

2. The other economic argument I haven't seen in this thread is the costs to the U.S. economy due to employee illness because of a lack of primary health care coverage and preventive care. Example: the employee who has a sore throat, but doesn't have basic coverage, or can't afford the deductible, so continues to come to work with the sore throat for a week until it is unbearable and he ends up in the ER for a case of strep after infecting half his coworkers. Or, the flip side, the employer who loses time, money, and business because of extended employee sick time that could have been minimized with early, and proper, treatment.

3. For those who do not believe in public education OR universal healthcare, I applaud your consistency. Any argument that public education is something worth spending government money on, but health care is not, lacks any logic or reason. Why is education more of a public good or benefit than health care? And how are kids expected to learn anything when they are sick?

4. Anyone who rails against the government controlling healthcare decisions instead of the individual clearly does not understand the current health care system and how much control the insurance companies have over the standard of care and what level of care patients can receive. Patients have very little choice now, even with the best insurance.

5. There are lots of reasons why Medicare and Medicaid cost so much, and I am not enough of an expert to know whether or not the systems are failing or just expensive. But Medicare and Medicaid are NOT the proper analogies here. Under most proposals I've seen, a single payor system would be like the government employees' health insurance plan or a large employer's ERISA plan -- paid for by the government, but administered by a private health care management entity. Sure, the government would ultimately decide the level of benefits, like ERISA plans now, but there wouldn't necessarily be a government agency and bureaucracy actually doing the billing and claims processing. Right now, your level of benefits are decided by your employer, or if you purchase individually, then by the options given to you by the insurance company, combined with certain government mandates for coverage (silly things like requring coverage for at least 24 hours in the hospital after giving birth).

6. Cost. I am not an economist, but I cannot see how a government program could possibly cost more than the billions of dollars in employee bonuses paid to health insurance executives every year. It would have to at least break even.

7. A question for those who think insurance should not be tied to the employer, and should be on an individual basis only: how would that be underwritten? What pool or class of insureds would you draw from?

8. I do appreciate the chuckles I got from the suggestions of things like using pharma samples to manage patient mental health conditions. As a long-term solution? Trying to regulate and monitor dosage and side effects? It would be malpractice. Not to mention that for major mental illnesses, many drugs are in a class or schedule where prescription refills aren't even allowed, much less samples. I can be selfish just like the libertarians: I will gladly pay taxes to go to Medicaid so that poor people who are bipolar or schizophrenic can be ON meds and treated and less of a danger to ME or any of my loved ones.

9. What I found most amusing, however, is the thought that someone could "budget" for their own healthcare. You know, plan. Catastrophic things happen, and they can be devastating, but it is possible to obtain insurance against catastrophic illness or injury. What if you're a healthy 28-year-old who suddenly falls ill to the point of temporary disability at times, is sent to specialist after specialist for test after test, and seven years later some of the best doctors in the country think that they might have finally figured out a diagnosis? At one point, I was taking 27 pills a day, plus 8 pills once a week, plus giving myself weekly injections that cost $1200 per syringe. Tell me exactly how someone budgets for that possibility.

Trust me, I'm not whining about my situation. I'm EXTREMELY lucky. I have a few degrees behind my name, make a six-figure salary, and have excellent health insurance (through my employer, though it's not subsidized). Yet my medical costs, not to mention other economic costs due to 7 years of chronic illness, have almost destroyed me financially on more than one occasion even with said insurance. Want to talk personal choice? If I decided I didn't like my employer's insurance and wanted to purchase an individual policy, no insurance company would even offer me the option. There's no personal choice. Think it can't happen to you? I was running 10Ks regularly and in the best shape of my life with not so much as a yearly cold when this happened. Someone, in one post, said they were sorry for someone's catastrophic illness/injury but it could never happen to them. There's a reason people say not to say "never."

I'm not an advocate for socialized medicine. I'm still not sure that's the best way to go. I do believe, however, that all of society benefits from universal healthcare, and not just because it's the right thing to do.