We already have universal healthcare but we call it Maryland Medicaid. But it's only universal if you are way below the poverty level and have minor children or if you are over 21 and be disabled to the point that you can not work for over one year. So you have to be beyond poor or absolutely useless to the workforce to get it. Take either one of those qualifications and you also have earned a huge stigma in society overall, not to mention the welfare stigma of being a leach on our taxes. Our healthcare qualifications are a joke. Oh but if we move to universal halthcare then our entire structure will collapse. It already has. And we're now waiting for healthcare companies and politicians to make it better? We have no control.

Working with Medicare day in and day out, I would rather die than hand everyone's healthcare coverage (mine included) over to the federal government. Whenever the government gets involved in a program, they cover it up with so much red tape that you can't even recognize it anymore. Medicare is a bunch of white collar criminals as far as I'm concerned. They change the rules for reimbursement every time someone figures out how to actually get paid for their services. If all of healthcare ever looked like that, we might as well pack it up and call it a day.

...now maybe passing some sort of legislation to require private health insurance companies to provide low cost coverage to anyone... that's an idea.

The simple truth and the bottom line is health care is a right, not a luxury. Europeans and the fine citizens of every other industrialized nation are baffled over the very real threat that anybody in the United States could go bankrupt just to finance care for a basic medical condition, and that having health care can be a major guiding force as to whether one accepts a certain job, gets married, or retires later in life just to hold on to health insurance.

To those who complain or are terrified of government-susidized health insurance, it should be noted that the current system is far from "efficient," or even "functional." The USA spends the largest percentage of GDP of any industrialized nation on health care with the majority dissatisfied with HMO's and insurance companies. Whereas bureaucracy in government is the only threat to a single-payer system, the trade off comes in that health insurance companies are profit driven, and not at all concerned with the well-being of their patrons. A single-payer system would in fact not only improve the availability of care, but also the quality.

When nearly 50 million Americans are uninsured, clearly the system is broken, and we are nearing dire straits. The change will require local and state efforts, as well as a national impetus to change how health care is delivered.

Seriously Jacobs, you've OBVIOUSLY never seen universal healthcare in action. Any evidence that it improves quality of care is PURELY anecdotal.

!

To all my recent critics, consider this:

It may be true that the United States has the best trained physicians of any industrialized nation, however, that in itself does not guarantee a high quality of care. The U.S. rank 37th in the World Health Organization's assessment of global health care systems out 191 nations. We rank below Canada in outcome studies of several diseases including coronary artery disease and renal failure, and we have higher rates of infant mortality and lower life expectancies than most European nations. This may be attributable in part to other factors, such as the American diet, but it certainly also means the current system isn't a success. For what is spent on a health care as a percentage of GDP, we certainly aren't getting what we should in terms of quality and availability.

I'll defend what I've said before that when *nearly 50 million people do not have health insurance, and anybody can go bankrupt financing a basic medical condition, there is something wrong - gravely wrong - with the current system.

1. There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?

2. "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.

3. Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.

4. Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.

5. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.

6. Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.

7. Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.

8. Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.

9. A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.

10. Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.

11. Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.

12. Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.

13. Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right"