The acceptable rate of death – while waiting for treatment – in the US is less than 3%; the acceptable rate in the rest of the exalted “Industrialized Nations” with Universal Healthcare is right above 11%. Experimental treatments are rarely considered and require what would be considered an act of congress in the US to get approved. If you have cancer, you’d better hope that the first round of treatments offered to you works or shows signs of working because chances are, you won’t get too many other options; if it doesn’t show improvement of some kind, why should they take the chance on another expensive attempt? One of the oldest jokes in England is about its healthcare …”Her Majesty’s Hospitals are where the British go to die; America is where the British go for treatment.”

Visit a walk-in or day clinic in any town in the US which is close to Canada, you can’t get treated because the waiting rooms are full of Canadians hoping to get seen within the same year they take ill. Hey, it’s all okay, the American pharmaceutical companies only charge them pennies on the dollar for their drugs but in the US, they charge what the market will bear … they get what people are willing to pay to live. I call that greed yet I’m not willing to throw in the towel and let the government take over my healthcare. I’ve seen how they handle Social Security, Welfare and Public Schools … why would I willingly let them handle something as important as my Health?

Yes to Regulations and more oversight on skyrockeing costs … no to gov’t cheeze healthcare.

One of the things I have noticed about pretty much all the countries that have a single payer system is that doctors are educated for free. Part of the reason that fees are so high is the doctors have to pay back incredible loan amounts that financed their education. I don’t think it would be that difficult to provide free education to those wanting to be doctors. Don’t want that to be funded by taxpayers? Fine. Schools can set up endowments from private donations or get some type of tax credit.

The one thing that really needs correction is from my earlier post: people that cannot qualify for private health insurance. If they are made guarantee issue products, premiums for all would go through the roof. However, if health insurance was *required*, like auto insurance, it would stop the bleeding. The reason being is basic insurance principle: 20% of the people incurr 80% of the claims. If people like my 21 year old nephew (healthy, but uninsured by choice) were required to have coverage, it offsets the unhealthy people.

These are just a few ideas that don’t require nationalizing anything and are probably pretty cost efficient in the long haul. I could get on my soapbox about doctors and prescription drugs, but I’ll spare you all!

One last word on state mandates. The states wouldn’t have had to mandate things if the insurance companies covered them to begin with. I am old enough to remember when maternity, child immunizations and mammograms weren’t covered. I consider these to be “good” mandates. However, I agree, IVF should not be mandated. It is a choice and a very expensive one for the rest of us. Also, I hope to never see mandates on bariatric bypass or lap band. I handle the benefits for my company and every employee that asks about whether this is covered is grossly overweight and has not even tried a lifestyle change. They don’t participate in our Weight Watchers program, they have never attempted to see a Nutrionist (which IS covered under our plan), and they have never attempted an exercise program.

Whether these plans are the best solution to the problem is still to be determined, but at least admit there is a problem and America is way behind the rest of the industrialized world in healthcare. We can wring our hands and moan about the problem, or we can start trying out some solutions.

Bad judgement, but probably not worth the principle losing her job.

The greatest current push is toward Government mandated coverage levels and government funding and/or government required funding. Corporations reasonably resist this approach because it negatively impacts the bottom line and reduces employee satisfaction due to reduced wages, personal choice and in extreme cases, reduced employment levels.

To date, we have not seriously considered very many alternatives. What about requiring individuals above a determined earning level to purchase their own insurance? Are we willing to accept that some will be able to afford better or more health care services? What about removing laws that increase costs without adding value? What about Torte reform?

What it boils down to is who we trust to fix our current health care problems. I do not trust the government to fix it (run it or manage it). Government in general, is not able to manage programs well. They are filled with bureaucracy, overspending and inefficiencies as well as being self protective. Government can, and should, pressure the free market to fix the problems. They can do this by enacting laws requiring fairness and being courageous enough to eliminate legislation that promotes inefficiency and increased costs.

The easy answer is rarely the right one. Looking to our government to wave its magic monetary wand is the easy, not the right, answer.