We do not have the free enterprise system in the USA Kim. Where is it? The bailout? Banning trade with countries we do not like? Our inflationary fiat currency? Social Security? Income taxes? All these items are anti-symptomatic of a free enterprise system. We’re as communist as China is capitalist, it’s all the same essential system just with a different flavor of icing on top.

I worked for two multi-national companies for years and had great benefits. But, due to a string of unfortunate events, I now depend on government assistance. If it wasn’t for Medicaid, et al, I could not get the treatment I require and would more than likely be dead now. Yes, the system needs a good deal of improvement but it’s my only option at this point.

I am taking this in to my case worker to share. Keep it up.

A bit off topic but here in Massachusetts we’ll be voting on 3 ballot questions pushed forward by citizens. They are 1) making dog racing illegal, 2) decriminalizing marijuana and 3) (you’ll love this one), eliminating the state income tax.

Personally, I’m in favor of all three, with the pot and income tax questions making government much, much smaller by basically forcing them to be smaller. The dog racing thing is not super important but the other two are. We will not miss the tax revenue and it will force the government to be more efficient and we’ll save enough money by not chasing after and jailing pot users to make up the difference anyway. So, I’m for less government too but in the case of health care, I trust an entity that is not out to make profit more than the insurance companies.

I went off topic there but yes, my plan is to mostly replace insurance companies with government. I like how you pinpointed that thread because even I did not see it. It’s a nice summary. I’m a bit of an economics geek so I’m a big advocate of the free market, to an extent. In some areas, the free market is just not appropriate and personally, health insurance is such an area. If I could buy a health care plan sold by a non-profit organization, I would do so. As is today, I have no desire for health insurance. It’s a big, big distinction and unfortunately our current system is absolutely dominated by insurance companies.

You spoke very well Ben, but yes the written word is a bit tough to manipulate sometimes, especially when it comes to topics we’re passionate about but are so big that we cannot possibly be 100% absolutely correct always. There are problems with both systems, that much we agree on, but which one has less problems is simply something we cannot know without trying both. I’d love it if states were the absolute authority on this as then we’d be able to have both systems and see which works better.

I do disagree with the 46mill number that that is kinda irrelevant to the debate. I will also say that people are being denied health care in the same way I am being denied a Lamborghini. After seeing some ER bills, that’s a nice comparison. The problem is we have competition in health care, because of insurance being so big no one sees any prices. Its like capitalism with out a market and socialism without a central planner.
I just generally believe in small government, and I mean small. some one once told me that no government is perfect and they are right; no government, is perfect. <<<I really hope that makes sense I know some things just dont work well written.

My health system would have a single payer system, where anyone can go to a hospital and get emergency treatment for free, at the point of delivery. If someone was shot or had a stroke or is suffering from any other life threatening or just serious issue, they should not have to worry about where the closest clinic is or how much it will cost. Similar to our current law, except we officially remove cost from the equation.

As for non-emergency treatments, anyone could go to any hospital and get regular treatment without paying a bill, again at the point of delivery. The hospitals would either bill the government or would be directly owned by the government. Private specialists could practice inside the hospitals but would have to also work part-time for the government program (and get paid the government wage for it). Note, the government wage would have to be high to encourage doctors to practice at the hospitals. It would most likely be lower than doctors receive today, but not necessarily by much.

Alternatively, specialists and physicians could create private clinics, however emergency treatment would need to be provided to the best of their ability to anyone needing it. At private clinics, regular treatment (say for colds, physical checkups, or prescription refills / re-evaultions, etc.) could be rejected. My hope is that there would be enough public hospitals scattered around the country that people in need of emergency treatment would immediately go there and avoid the clinics.

The line separating emergency and regular treatment is a bit blurry, I’ll admit and is an area I would have to expand on before making this a law. Part of the reason for this is I’m simply not a medical professional and would want to discuss this topic with several professionals before making a final statement. For instance, what about drug users overdosing? Is the first time an emergency but the tenth time regular treatment? Do we take the person’s desire to stay healthy into the equation, for instance smokers, drug users, and overweight people go to the back of the line? Or do we admit that in any system some people will try to abuse the system and strain the system more than others?

OK, back to the plan.

Immediately, on day one of entering the new plan we’d begin building government run hospitals AND government run schools in the major cities and population centers. Students could go to the government run school for free, granted they’d have to sign a contract to practice at a government run hospital for 2-3 years, and earn the government wage. Again, the government wage would not be minimum wage nor anything close to it. If you practice as a doctor at a government hospital you will still be well off. Honestly, I think many doctors would be OK with this wage, though of course nearly everyone would rather make tons of money.

I’ll be the first to admit, my plan is not perfect. The big thing I want to see is cost removed at the point of delivery so that people are not discouraged from seeing a doctor. If we have physicals twice a year and everyone goes because they’re free (and hopefully we build enough hospitals, and educate and hire enough doctors to keep waits short) we’ll have a much better chance of catching serious diseases and of keeping people healthy (e.g. not smoking, eating right, exercising). More healthy people would reduce costs and improve our national security (by having more people able to defend this land if need be).

I think the big reason you are for a private run system, Ben, is a desire to see innovation and the best doctors be rewarded. And on that issue I’m in complete agreement with you. Even if we move to a single payer system we should install safeguards to ensure companies are encouraged to innovate and doctors strive to be the best. In my scenario, if a doctor thinks he/she is the best they can start their own clinics or practice inside a hospital and charge whatever rate they wish. Honestly, I think the scenario where a doctor practices inside a hospital but remains semi-private is really good, as it forces the doctor to see more than just a certain segment of the population and thus exposes him/her to more human samples while still allowing the doctor to make bank.

The other safeguard would need to be patents for prescription medicines and for new medical techniques. If a private lab finds the cure for cancer or AIDS, by all means they are allowed to sell the cure for a few years at whatever rate they wish. After a short time period (say 3-5 years) of the drug/technique being on the marketplace, however, it would become public domain and anyone could create it and sell it. Though at that point the drug would, if warranted, be available for free via the government run hospitals (and labs).

I’ll admit, the absolute details of my plan need to be expanded upon, however my main overall point is that anyone who needs health care should have a way to acquire it at little to no cost. Having 46 million people without health insurance, who are too wealthy for medicare/medicaid but not wealthy enough to pay their own way is honestly sad for a nation that claims it is #1 in everything. It is a staggering amount of people and is a clear sign, to me, that our current system simply does not work. Though, as we’ve noted in this debate, what works is not an absolute term. Do we judge our health care system on how many cures it finds or on how many people it cures?

At the end of the day, all I know for sure is I simply do not feel right paying so much in taxes to fund wars, bail out banks, yet deny 46 million people adequate health care. It’s just not right and we have to work to find a way to make sure everyone can be healthy. This debate is a great start, and brings the focus of health care to forefront rather than our countless other dilemmas.