We need a universal health care system. Here's one idea.

Let me begin by saying that, after reading your last round, it seems as though you didn't internalize what I said before making your points. Its like you were pretending I said something else and responded to your imagination. I'll try to get you back on track. 1. Let me just check and make sure you know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare cares for the elderly. Whether they are poor or not, old people qualify for Medicare coverage. Medicaid, on the other hand, covers poor people. For most people, you qualify to receive Medicare benefits once you turn 65. Unlike Medicare, Medicaid is needs-based and is administered by each state, so qualifications vary. Based on your previous round, you seem to have the two mixed up. And the fact that there is Medicaid and Medicare does not negate the fact that 47 million people in this country don't have health coverage. You have to stop thinking that people simply don't want coverage. No one wants to spend their lives hoping they don't get sick for fear of the bills they would face. Everyone wants insurance, they just can't afford it, even with Medicaid and Medicare. Even the American Medical Association, traditionally a very conservative organization of physicians that has opposed every attempt at national health coverage, is now running ads deploring the fact that 1 in 7 people are not covered. I would hope that that serves as some kind of perspective for you in just how bad the problem is right now. Under your logic, no program is capable of being run. Why do we have a Secretary of Defense or State? Why do we have a Secretary of Homeland Security? Why do we even have a president if no one person can run a large program? It seems like you're reaching for straws as for why the single-payer plan wouldn't work in this point. 2. What's so absurd about the tax plan I mentioned to cover it? Doctors, hospitals, pharmaceuticals and device manufacturers would all be taxed before any individual. In addition, resources would be taken from Medicare and Medicaid to cover it since their role in providing services would be diminished. After those bases have been touched, then only the wealthiest people would be taxed first. Please explain to me what about this plan is absurd? As it is, employer-based coverage makes employees pay a certain percentage of the premiums. As medical costs have risen, the share that employers have been making employees pay as risen as well, or employers have stopped offering coverage altogether. Between this, copays and deductibles, individuals pay ridiculous amounts for usually crappy coverage. That's another thing. You mention "the different insurances". You're right. The fractious nature of the system means that every insurer has a smaller risk pool than would be the case in a single-payer system. This means that they have to keep their rates higher since they are pulling in money from fewer people. Its basic economies of scale. 3. Explain to me how hospitals and doctors remaining private keeps people from being entitled to the same thing? Universal health care is universal in COVERAGE, meaning that everyone is entitled to the same care since everyone has access to it. Under the current system, people get denied to the care they need all the time because they don't have the right coverage or no coverage at all. The private insurance market is the #1 problem. Let me explain to you how HMOs have totally screwed up the system. As it is, most insurers only pay a percentage of what Medicare pays. This is the example that the executive director of heart and vascular services at the hospital I worked at gave me: Say a certain procedure costs the hospital $8,000 to perform and Medicare pays the hospital $10,000 to do it. That means that the hospital makes $2,000 profit from it. HMOs, however, sometimes only pay 30% of what Medicare pays, which in this example would only be $3,000. That means that the hospital loses $5,000 every time they perform it. So, in order to simply pay its bills, the hospital has to inflate their prices 300%, turning that $3,000 into $9,000. The hospital's costs stayed the same at $8,000, but now they can make $1,000 profit on it. THIS IS WHERE THE MAJORITY OF MEDICAL INFLATION COMES FROM. These costs get passed onto to everyone else who needs that procedure, including Medicare. A single-payer system would completely erase the built up inflation in the system, as well as keep it from happening again. 4. I'm not even sure what you're talking about in this point. You made the mistake of confusing Medicare and Medicaid again, but aside from that, you aren't really saying anything else. Public hospitals are suffering, and raising local taxes just to cover themselves from so many people they see lacking coverage. The single-payer system I mentioned, or any universal system, would enable public and non-profit hospitals, who have much lower overhead than for profit hospitals, would be able to provide much better services and lower local taxes. 5. My points just aren't true? After working with doctors and hospital administration for nearly 10 years, I can tell you it is very much true. Here, go to Physicians for a National Health Program and see what they say about the time wasted dealing with HMOs. It's enlightening. And why India? How about France and Italy? Or how about Great Britain or Canada? All of them have universal systems and all of them have better health systems then we do, according to the World Health Organization. http://www.pnhp.org... 6. Who would be paying the same amount? I already pointed out to you who would be paying the taxes on this. And of course you're relatively healthy. You're only 16. I'm only 24, but I'm already having a few minor problems, but still problems nonetheless. My gf is also 24, but she's needed three reconstructive jaw surgeries. Dealing with her "premium" insurance provider has been a nightmare. I couldn't imagine if she had an HMO. That was only for her surgeries though. She doesn't have insurance anymore because she couldn't afford it. That doesn't mean her complications have stopped though. Count yourself lucky for being healthy. That won't always be the case. And when that time comes, you'll be angry if you have to spend 25% of your income of health care, which many people with insurance are having to do. If you did have to pay into the system, other people would be paying into it for you when you needed it. Trust me, you will need it at some point. 7. First of all, as I mentioned before, most insurers are wanting to move to only covering catastrophic coverage anyway. This system would only aid them in achieving what they want anyway. You clearly have no idea how much hospitals and doctors hate dealing with HMOs. I was talking with a nurse practitioner just today who was telling me she spent almost 34% of her income on clerical staff just to deal with billing. Doctors would love the new system if for no other reason then HMOs would be a thing of the past. 8. I didn't deny it. In fact, I backed it up. Read what I said again. It isn't the money they are in it for. They are in medicine because they love helping people and love the respect they get in their communities. Beyond that, I have no idea what you're talking about. 9. What? Are you even reading what I'm saying? I said I'm not on government coverage because I'm a full-time grad student and still covered by my mom's insurance. We're ranked between Costa Rica and Slovenia because of the lack of accessibility to our system. What the hell about my point made you think I thought the system was working as it is? 10. I don't know why you choose India for your examples. Here, check out the World Health Organization's rankings. At least 15 of the top 20 have universal or single-payer systems. http://www.photius.com...