I agree, whybesad. The government already has too much on it's plate to deal with universal health care. It seems the FDA isn't doing much to make sure that Americans receive safe and effective medicines already. They just want to make sure Americans are medicated...and quickly. The FDA allows the sale of medications that have not been fully researched and are causing MORE health problems; however, if universal health care goes into effect, I wonder if doctors of said health care will prescribe unnecessary meds in order to get kickbacks like they do now...

Wal-mart and Target have done more for low income people buying medicine that the government has. We don't need the government to have it's hands in every aspect of our lives do we? I want to be able to choose the doctor of my choice and be able to get a second opinion if I need one. Government control isn't the answer.

LOL g-fan, I thought this topic was dead and buried!

Oops, j-grad's already been here.
-----------
I now live in Canada, which has universal health care. No one here is being "taken care of like a baby", unless you are one.
Taxes are about equivalent as to what I paid on my income in the US. The employers pay health tax (in Ontario) on annual payroll over $400,000, then the employer pays 0.98% to 1.95% of payroll over $400,000 (your employer in the US pays for part or all of your health care benefit IF they even offer one at all). Health care is also funded partially by federal tax (which the US does with your federal taxes as well for Medicaid, Medicare, etc).
leaderofthepack: Yeah, I'd be scared that all of that would happen if it was the US (or Wisconsin) government were running it.
Canada has had universal health care coverage for everyone since 1961.
I get to choose my doctor here. The government has no say in who I pick for my Primary Health Care Provider, nor the hospital I choose to go to. When I was covered by "health care insurance" by my employers in the US for 25 years, many plans had a list of "Primary Health Care Providers" they had contracted with, and I could only see doctors on that list if I didn't want to pay out of pocket for my visit. Those US Insurance plans also picked my hospital for me.
Here, I pay no deductible to see MY chosen doctor. Under US health plans I usually had to meet deductibles and pay co-pays for each visit to the doctor and hospitals "chosen" by my US health plan.
Everyone is covered here. Rich or poor, you have a basic right to health care. In 2 years here, I have not seen the system abused for "every little sniffle". Emergency rooms are used for emergencies here; they are not crowded with poor people using the ER as their primary health care, as is the case in the US.
With everyone having basic health care coverage, employers are better able to cover prescription meds, dental plans, durable medical equipment, etc.
Doctors here are well compensated for their services, and they aren't any more "over-worked" than in the US. In fact, I can usually set up an appointment within a week to see my doctor here for a routine exam, but in the US, with my "insurance-chosen" doctor, I would have waits as long as 3 months.
No system is perfect. I have heard that some people may wait a bit longer for certain procedures (especially away from urban areas, but that happens in the US as well). But overall, the treatments are the same, using the same procedures as you would find in the US.
Overall, I would say that my health care coverage here has been excellent. I think it is a humane country that makes sure no one goes without health care, regardless if a person is a child, or the person who cleans your toilets, or a CEO of a company.

I haven't read all the posts here yet but it seems like jsvlparkergrad should join this blog. He says that though socialized medicine in Canada has its problem, he prefers what's going on there compared to what he's seen in the states e.g. old destitute people needing to spend all their money on expensive medications etc.

yeah. You are right, billnewbie. I mean no disrespect here, but I will just pray every night that I don't become ill or break a bone, as I can't afford to pay the attorneys and insurance companies of the doctors and hospitals that will get paid using "my money" from paying my bill for a standard procedure, where chances are good that no mistake will occur. I will take a band-aid, gauze bandage and elastic wrap in with me next time I have to see a doctor, though, just in case...

ms_sassy_wi:
I agree with everything you wrote except the poverty part. The government sets poverty levels for political reasons more than actual reasons. As far as price setting goes, since the free market doesn't seem to apply in the health care field, price controls may work, but only if we also control the awards given in law suits, as the price for mistakes is extreme. But the political power of those who oppose reform is extreme, too.

Yes, billnewbie, poverty has been redefined. but the government established the guidelines, and many people live in poverty in this country. And yes, many people take advantage of the social programs in place to ASSIST-they were never designed to pay for entire families from one generation to the next. And yes, you are correct, that people's priorities are all goofed up. Cable TV isn't a necessity. but health care is. I would like to see some type of regulation so that the doctors and hospitals can still function and prices are reasonable for all who need the services for general health care. When I go to the hospital, I would rather have a .15 band-aid rather than a $15 one and they can spend less on pictures, furniture and wall paper. It's a hospital, I want it to be a sterile and clean environment, not a weekend get-away. just my opinion.

I'm all for HSA's. I've been using a HSA for several years now and it works well for my family and I. With health insurance plans most people don't have a clue how much the doctors appointment is going to cost. Most don't care they pay the co-pay and are done with it. That's part of the problem. The doctors can charge whatever they want to an insurance company. Look at the things that aren't covered by insurance like lasik eye surgery. When that first came out it was very expensive but, now you can get it done relatively inexpensive. The market should dictate what doctors charge for a procedure not the insurance companies. When I go to the doctor I ask before hand how much is the visit going to cost they always seem so surprised and have to go into the computers to look. Then I get a discount when I write the check from my HSA to them at the time of the visit.

Poverty, in this country, has been redefined. For most of the world, poverty means not having enough to eat, not enough cloths, poor or no shelter, poor sanitation, etc. Here, poverty means an old car, only one T.V. set, eating out at McDonald's only a couple times a month, hamburger instead of steak unless the food stamp card just got re-loaded, etc. Health care is available to everyone regardless of their means to pay, by law. True, the poor may not have access to a personal physician, but they don't have a personal chef either. The poor aren't the problem anyway. The government supplies health care to the poor already. The problem is that people who can afford to pay for their own health care, sacrificing certain aspects of their lifestyle which they do not want to do, want government to step in so that they don't have to make those sacrifices, while saying that the "rich" should be made to make sacrifices. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor sounds good, but it is still theft. If one claims that the "rich" steal their wealth, they can make that claim in court where those ill-gotten gains can be confiscated, both legally and morally. There is no shortage of lawyers who will help , provided one can provide evidence that the rich stole their wealth.

I'm not for Universal Health care, but Billnewbie said, "Education is an obligation. The state forces children to be educated until they are 18."

The state also says that providing adequate health care for your child(ren) is an obligation. If you do not do so, you are facing child neglect charges. BadgerCare, which has provided families who live in poverty with health care; which, in theory is a great thing. Problem is that there is such a vast difference between Upper Class and Poverty. The difference gets bigger every year. Health care needs are getting bigger every year. The number of families going into poverty gets bigger every year. Private insurance rates increase every year. Has anyone looked at the option of COBRA lately? The rates are ASTRONOMICAL! Obviously, something has to change. I don't have an answer or a suggestion. I know that, for example, Mercy Health System is a "not-for-profit" business. I think there is money being made all over the place. Where they SPEND it, and whose pocket the money goes into apparently doesn't matter much to the IRS. It matters to me. I don't want to pay $15 for a band aid. Can I bring one in with me, the next time I need a shot?

greatkids, take an economics course please. As far as you not having insurance...you said you and your spouse are self-employed. Either write the check for the insurance, or get a job that offers benefits. I really don't need the hassle of footing your medical bills.

Universal health care is like Pandora's box, Once you open that can of worms, there's no going back. Like welfare, public schools, and social security, people will become dependant on universal health care and will never want to take responsibility for their own health again. There's no "trying it", one it's here, it's here to stay, like it or not.

Healthcare is life.

I would like to ask then are all industrialized countries, apart from the U.S. marxist? Have you ever lived in a country with universal health care? only once you have lived in a country with and without will you know the true value.

Education is an obligation. The state forces children to be educated until they are 18. A right is something you can take or leave. You may go to college, if you qualify, but there is no right to it.
Food production is also a for profit buisness. Should government dictate what is grown, where, by whom, and how much the food should be sold for, making sure that everyone makes the same wage? Is that not Marxism?

I also have to ask billnewbie if he went to public school or sent his kids to public school. How can education be a right, and healthcare not?

The government is us. In case you forget. We pay the taxes. The reason it needs to be run by the government, is because health care is right now a for profit business. Look at how Japan works it, the government controls all costs, that includes the manufacturers of medical equipment, so no-one gets extremely rich, but everyone does ok.

Our tax payer dollars have been sent over to destroy Iraq. Lets use them to help our people. If our health care system was doing just fine on it's own, this wouldn't be an issue. Costs need to be controlled. This is a way it can be. So many other countries have tried this successfully. Why can't we?

If you can claim a right to having your health care bills paid by the government, as that is what universal health care is, you can also claim a right to food, shelter, clothing and fuel bills paid by the government as those things are just as necessary as health care. We now have this new found right to health care. What's next? Karl Marx once wrote "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Do we really want to adopt Marxism?

To Northman, and whybesad, We should always be looking and learning. Why can't we learn from other countries. If their system works well and people are 90 - 99% satisfied with their health care. It's a crock to say go and live there then, we are trying to improve OUR country and eveyone agrees the health care system here needs to be fixed. There is a mindset that our government can't run anything. Well give us a chance! Our school system works pretty good. How would you like it if that became private. Ok, everyone now you have to pay x a year to educate your kids, and the cost will go up by an average of 25% every year. You wouldn't be very happy. Universal health care can exist side by side with private health care, so if you want to keep on making insurance and pharmaceutical companies rich you can go ahead. For those people that can't afford it, they need to have the ability to get health care without being afraid of the bills. My husband and I have a very good income, but are self employed, we can hardly afford health care, we pay a large premium every month, that basically only covers us if we spend over $10,000, it's crazy! Good job we don't have any preexisting illnesses because they wouldn't even cover us!

To Northman, and whybesad, We should always be looking and learning. Why can't we learn from other countries. If their system works well and people are 90 - 99% satisfied with their health care. It's a crock to say go and live there then, we are trying to improve OUR country and eveyone agrees the health care system here needs to be fixed. There is a mindset that our government can't run anything. Well give us a chance! Our school system works pretty good. How would you like it if that became private. Ok, everyone now you have to pay x a year to educate your kids, and the cost will go up by an average of 25% every year. You wouldn't be very happy. Universal health care can exist side by side with private health care, so if you want to keep on making insurance and pharmaceutical companies rich you can go ahead. For those people that can't afford it, they need to have the ability to get health care without being afraid of the bills. My husband and I have a very good income, but are self employed, so can hardly afford health care because we have 3 kids.

Those polls are very misleading. They sometimes will present the question to fool you. They should put the whole question in print. I don't support state run health care at all. Have you ever been to the DMV? that's state run and they can't run that right.

according to a government census report http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/...

there are 5,556,506 people in Wisconsin and 23.6% are under 18 years of age (so probably not interested/able in participating in said survey)

so, 4,245,171 adults in Wisconsin and they asked 521 people.

Good thing "the majority" has spoken...

????????

I'm always amazed at the results of "recent poll of a majority of residents"...

I was never invited to take part in this OR ANY poll. So I wonder how they come up with their figures and assume they have accurate results...

It’s always funny to hear the refrain of, “in X country, this is better,” and, “in Y country, that is better.” The lifestyle in every country is the result of years, or centuries, of development and compromise. Not that we shouldn’t look for good examples and aspire to better, but it’s a fallacy to look at another country and demand that we have what they have. You can’t pick and choose traits from other countries like off of some Chinese menu and expect those amenities to appear in our country. There are always trade-offs, and in some cases, the price is too high.
.
There is, of course, an option. To those who want to learn Icelandic or Swedish, I say good luck, and don’t let the customs door hit you on the way out. Enjoy it there.

If government takes over healthcare then they will have a financial interest in your lifestyle and your life. They'll use that interest as an excuse to mandate what you can eat, what kind of recreational activities you can enjoy, the kind of risks you can take. When you get too old or disabled, they'll decide whether you're worth the expense to treat you or to simply let you pass away. It won’t be a decision between you and your doctor, but between bureaucrats who are not well known for their compassion.

wow!....sure must be a lot of socialists in this state. borderline commies in my opinion. my guess is that those who want the government to pay their medical costs have never served their country nor given anything back to their fellow man. just take, take, take!!!!!!

Here's an example of government run and how it is causing the private health care system to pay for their inadequacies:

Fee for injectible medication: $1600
Medicare approved amount: $582
Provider write off: $1018

Fee for bone scan: $600
Medicare approved amount: $77
Provider write off: $523

Who do you think has to cover the provider write off amount? The private payers, that's who. Why, because the government dictates how much they have to pay for medical bills regardless of what the hospital/clinic charges or what their costs are. So in order for the hospital/clinic to cover their losses they transfer their costs to private payers. That's just Medicare, that doesn't include Medicaid or Badgercare. So don't think we aren't already paying for others on a private basis. If the government were to take over completely, where would that money come from? Would we see anymore advances in technology?

A sign of maturity is taking responsibility for your own actions and well being. When are we going to stop asking the government to "take care" of us and start taking care of ourselves? When is the government going to start taking some responsibility for the crisis we're in and stop blaming private health insurance companies?

Personally, the last thing I want to see is government run, Universal Health Care! If Wisconsin can't afford to provide tax incentives for Health Savings Accounts (one of only four states in the entire nation that doesn't), what makes our politicians think they can afford to cover everyone? Just where do you think that money is going to come from? US! That's who!

When the government proposed "Healthy Wisconsin", Forward Janesville asked local businesses to determine if they would save or lose money. My employer's cost would have doubled! Currently, my employer pays 100% of the employee's premium. Under "Healthy Wisconsin" not only would the employer's cost double, but I too would have to take on costs that I currently don't. How many others would have been in the same/similar situation?

One more thing, I talked at length with someone from Sweden and a little with someone from Iceland about their health care. Both were very satisfied with the health care in their countries. In Sweden, if you are sick, you call a nurse and describe your symptoms, if it is cold/virus, they just tell you to call back the next day if you aren't better. No one runs to the doctor for a cold because they don't let you! If your symptoms are serious, you see the doctor that day. You can choose who your doctor is. I think there has been a lot of anti-universal health care propaganda spread in this country by the insurance/big drug industries. If we already spend more than any other country per capita, and we already have the best medicine, then we SHOULD be able to come up with a universal health care system that is even BETTER than all those already out there. Our current system is broken.

As a person who works in a healthcare field, I believe that the goverment is ALREADY causing our high prices. "BadgerCare" and Medicare, pay on average 1/4 of the rate that regular insurance, and patients who don't have insurance pay. Where do you think a Doctor/Hospital/Clinic make up that 3/4 of cost from, naturally it is passed on to to the rest of the paying patients. It's easy to point the finger at the evil Hospitals and Doctors making a lot of money, but when the solution is already half in place and is causing problems, why would you want to make the problem the solution? As always your evil conservative, with heartless comments meant to just keep big business alive... lol

insgal, Thanks for caring about my health! My kids and I have been to the doctor for check-ups, but our insurance doesn't pay for it! So in addition to my premiums, I have paid out-of-pocket for our preventative care. We might not go as often as recommended, but we are not ignoring prevention. We also exercise and eat right. I agree that lack of basic preventative measures, like keeping ones weight under control, is a huge problem contributing to run away health care costs.
I like the idea of a government high deductible policy with a health savings account so everyone is covered for catastrophic illness/injuries, but is responsible for spending their own health care money (the poor could have their savings account funded with a tax credit). I think that would go a long way towards decreasing costs, while making sure no one goes bankrupt from an illness/injury. An emphasis on prevention would also be necessary. I just think that insurance companies are an expensive middle man that could be eliminated for the good of the nation.

Universal health care is like being forced to shop at a large supermarket that has only one checkout open.

CEO Salaries.

Oh great. Now if we take another 5% from CEO salaries we can give 10000 families a new car.

I know a doctor who makes, in my view, too much money. Why not give me 5% of his salary?

I know a Mechanic who makes more than I. How much of his salary do I get?

Balderdash.

If anyone is interested in seeing a pretty well-thought out approach to this in Wisconsin - which, despite being drafted in a bi-partisan fashion will never see the light of day - go to http://www.wisconsinhealthproject.org/

Lets see,universal healthcare, designed by politicians (lawyers). People, the govenment is only good at 3 things. Delivering the mail, taking your money,and killing people. Do you really want to trust these bufoons with your health? Sure its a great idea if all you got is a cold, but anything more serious? Can't wait for those 6 month waits when its something serious. Another consideration. Since government would direct it, I would be willing to bet that a doctor's salary would drop quite a bit. If I am smart enough to be a doctor, then I am probably smart enough to be stockbroker, scientist, or any number of high paid positions. Talent goes where the money is and you will end up with a bunch of practitioners who wouldn't have qualified to be candy-stripers, much less doctors. There is a reason private hospitals in the U.K. are doing so well, and it sure isn't because their nationalized health system is a model needing to be copied.

I have to agree that much of our problem is of our own doing. I’d also add that most people would rather stuff a few dozen pills down their throats every month, than exercise and eat right. However, I would also argue that our doctors have their hands on the prescription switch and don’t do enough to keep this at the forefront of discussion. What we have is a prescription drug addicted society. As with many things in America we take the easy way out, rather than do the hard work. Granted, some drugs save lives and limit symptoms. On the other hand, as mentioned, many of our problems could be eliminated with diet and exercise. Drug companies tend to make minor problems sound as though it requires medication to fix. In addition, the side effects of many of these drugs require more drugs to dilute. I also agree that we have some of the best doctors and technology in the world in health care. However, this still doesn’t answer the call to help those who don’t have coverage. Should we tap the drug company profits to help like the Partnership for Prescription Assistance program? Should we only offer coverage to those who fall below a certain financial threshold? There are more questions than answers. Moreover, Wisconsin’s high taxes are going to kill the economy here. Being the second highest taxed state of the union (last I checked) is not a welcoming notice to anyone. In my opinion, Wisconsin is already lousy at managing its budget and taxes. A universal health care system will only add more burdens to the budget; I don’t care what formula is used. Has anyone ever seen a state or federal program that didn’t go over budget or wasn’t a complete mismanaged mess? Sure there is a few exceptions, but very few. There is a lot to think about. If you polled the same people that were polled for the universal health care question, I would gamble that the same number or higher wouldn’t want their taxes to go up either.

For the details of this poll, see:

http://www.uwsc.wisc.edu/BP26Release4_HC...

To all who think Universal Health Care is a good idea, Do you agree to have your income taxes go into the 55% range, like Germany, England, France, Canada? Could you afford that? Are you willing to hire a United States lawyer in order to have your chemo-therapy, radiation treatment or have your relative die prematurely as they wait on the long list for services. The average wait time for preventitive tests are 9-12 months. If you have cancer--expect a 6 month wait for chemo!

Will our best and brightest students become physicians when they are mandated by government to take care of their allotted patients at reduced income? Where will our technology advances go? Will the government get you the best treatment money can buy--think again! Will I get my digital mammogram or will I get whatever is available?

Only the Wealthy Foreigners can afford to fly into the United States because we have the freedom and best Health Care, technology, treatment options in the World. Why do many foreigners come to our country to live and work here? Because we have the best health care in the world! We will not maintain these high standards of care with National Health Care.

70% of all health care dollars go to take care of preventable diseases like diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, depression, congestive heart failure--which are all linked to lifestyle choices. Obesity, smoking, and lack of exercise contribute to the added insurance costs. If everyone would take some responsibility for their own health and begin a few healthy choices, we would experience a more favorable rate increase from our health insurance carriers.

I stress to the Janesville Mom writing, please get to the doctor to get your preventitive testing done. You may have high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes and not even know it! Prevention is key. Taking good care of ourselves is a lot of the answer!

Universal health care is a great idea; however it generally amounts to no more than political pandering. If it could have been implemented, it would have been so back in the nineties when the Clinton’s first took a look at it. The problem in the U.S. is a complete lack of qualified individuals to run the additional clinics and hospitals that would be required. There are currently 1600 openings in Wisconsin alone for RN’s (last I checked). Generally, those who do have insurance already wait up to two months to see specialist in some cases. The most important aspect of implementing universal health care, either state or federally run, is education. For example, my wife has been on the list to start RN clinical training for five years between Gateway and Blackhawk tech. At that type of pace there is no way we will have enough staff to cover the additional burden on the system. I think universal coverage should be implemented on state by state basis depending on the health care infrastructure in that particular state. There is no point in implementing something for the “good gesture,” if it will not be effective possibly even less effective than the current system. Again, I think universal coverage is a good idea, but I think investment in education is the first step to insuring the man/women power needed for the additional clinics and hospitals.

No jealousy, just a desire to live in a country where everyone has an equal chance at "the American Dream". When everyone has their basics met (good education, a living wage, affordable health care, reliable infrastructure, etc), then EVERYONE benefits. Crime will be a lot lower, we will take care of things before they become a crisis which will save money for everyone (not just health, but infrastructure...cheaper to fix a bridge before it collapses than to rebuild it and pay off the people who are injured or lost family members). I'm getting off topic, but I try to look at the whole picture, not my bottom line or any individual CEO. When wealth is more evenly distributed (not totally even like socialism, but in a stair-step pattern rather than the spike we have now)everyone in that society is happier, healthier and safer. Doesn't that sound nice? :)

1)The US is the only wealthy industrialized country that does not have Universal Health care.
2)The US pays 15% of GDP on healthcare, which is MORE for health care than any other country, yet other countries cover 100% of their population and we cover 84.2%!
3)Over 1/4 of the US population is already covered by the Government through Medicare, Medicaid, military and programs for children (so we are already paying for over 1/4 of the population to be covered).
4)With a single payer system, the potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do. (Physicians for a National Health Program)

The discussion seems to have wandered into jealosy over what other people make. That has nothing to do with health care nor the article.

I'm skeptical of these polls in the first place, but a couple of recent experiences only reenforced that skepticism. I was called for a survey regarding Wisconsin politics. I listened closely to the questions because many of them contained double negatives, so no meant yes and yes meant no. I'm not sure I caught everyone of the tricks.
A friend was recently polled about national politics. The questions were something like 'What's more important to you, the economy or immigration?' My friend was most concerned about neither of these. Now when they publish the results they can say that '60% of the people are most concerned with the economy', failing to mention there was only one other choice.
Bottom line, be skeptical of polls.

I would love to see the questions they used. Obviously they did not ask how they intended to pay for the program.

I'm all for success and being well compensated for your skills, BUT the CEO salaries are so far out there that it is bringing down our entire country. Wages at the top have gone up at a very fast rate while the middle and lower incomes have gone up a little or stagnated. If you want the US to be like a third world country where only the rich can afford the basics and the poor are begging on the streets, then we should keep going in the direction we are going. 80% of the people in a recent survey said the US is going in the wrong direction. I just wonder how much of my 600% premium increase has gone to the CEO's pocket? It hasn't gone to my health care because I have a high deductible plan and haven't used a dime of their money in years!

Universal health care is the best thing that could happen to us. Health care should be a right not a priviledge. I have lived in England and we had excellent health care. The wait time was no different than the U.S. in fact many times way better. The Doctor's actually come to your home if your too sick to get out of bed. People die in the U.S. all the time, because they don't have health care, or their insurance only covers a certain amount so they don't go for preventative care. By the time they do, many times it's a major illness and costs are astronomical. Badger care is great and it should be extended to everyone. Let's give our tax dollars to the people, not to invade foreign countries.

Make all health care insurance illegal except for catastrophic coverage (say over $10-20,000) and make people pay for their own health care with HSAs and see how fast health care costs come down.

Dear Janesvillemom or is it Robin Hood,
I have one phrase for you, OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY. These CEO's are highly compensated, there is no question about that, but they have a skill set that few people have. This skill of managing a multi-billion dollar company is not for everyone, and I doubt that few could even be successful at it. If we could all do it then the pay would be minimun wage. I happen to think that some of the CEO's that earn millions of dollars a year may be over paid, but I am not a shareholder of some of these companies, so I do not determine how much they should earn. Now for the companies which I am invested in, I have a say in the compensation of the leaders of the company through shareholder voting rights. If you do not like how much these people are paid, buy the stock and vote for the board of directors that will lower the compensation. Finally, why do you frown upon success? Why should people who are financially successful pay for your healthcare? Consider the implications of your argument!

janesville mom:
if we end up with universal healthcare, those ceo's will be paying much more than an additional 10%. and so will you. and so will I.
and so will everyone else.
universal healthcare is not free.

WOW, Northman, where did YOU live in Canada? And when?
I just haven't seen that type of service where I live. My doctor also looks to be prospering here as well (and she's not a foreign doctor, either). The average salary for physicians in Ontario is $200,000, in Alberta $260,000, and is roughly $200,000 nationwide.
Also, if all medical students are rushing to the US, why are new medical colleges being built as we speak?
Universal billing to a single payer, the government, is a lot less expensive than a doctor's office in the US, with 50+ providers paying their bills.
In Canada, I have had to take (or meet) people at the ER who have been hit by a car, been kicked in the head and other serious medical problems. The wait for those people was short (up to 1/2 hour). Here, they've gotten all the MRIs, X-Rays and CT scans, etc, that I've seen in US hospitals. Yeah, if you go to the ER for sniffles, you will wait just as long, or longer, in the US as here. When I've gone to the ER in the US, unless I've told them I are having chest pain, I have had to wait hours, along side people with gunshot wounds!
I have been in the US healthcare system for over 50 years (including 3 years in the military), and I can tell you that what I've seen here is efficient and less wasteful, but excellent health care, with caring professionals.

Copied from a doctors blog:
If basic insurance costs $8,000/year for a family then taking 10% from just these CEO salaries would insure 35,000 Americans a year for five years. That is a lot of people that can be helped just by 23 men. Looking at the companies as a whole that profit from health care, we can probably pay for every uninsured person in this country for decades to come.
The numbers are numbing, which is why we should do something about this.
* United Health Group
CEO: William W McGuire
2005: 124.8 mil
5-year: 342 mil

* Forest Labs
CEO: Howard Solomon
2005: 92.1 mil
5-year: 295 mil

* Caremark Rx
CEO: Edwin M Crawford
2005: 77.9 mil
5-year: 93.6 mil

* Abbott Lab
CEO: Miles White
2005: 26.2 mil
5-year: 25.8 mil

* Aetna
CEO: John Rowe
2005: 22.1 mil
5-year:57.8 mil
* Amgen
CEO: Kevin Sharer
2005:5.7 mil
5-year:59.5 mil
* Bectin-Dickinson
CEO: Edwin Ludwig
2005: 10 mil
5-year:18 mil
* United Health Group
CEO: William W McGuire
2005: 124.8 mil
5-year: 342 mil
* Forest Labs
CEO: Howard Solomon
2005: 92.1 mil
5-year: 295 mil
* Caremark Rx
CEO: Edwin M Crawford
2005: 77.9 mil
5-year: 93.6 mil
* Abbott Lab
CEO: Miles White
2005: 26.2 mil
5-year: 25.8 mil
* Aetna
CEO: John Rowe
2005: 22.1 mil
5-year:57.8 mil
* Amgen
CEO: Kevin Sharer
2005:5.7 mil
5-year:59.5 mil
* Bectin-Dickinson
CEO: Edwin Ludwig
2005: 10 mil
5-year:18 mil

* Boston Scientific
CEO:
2005:38.1 mil
5-year:45 mil
* Cardinal Health
CEO: James Tobin
2005:1.1 mil
5-year:33.5 mil
* Cigna
CEO: H. Edward Hanway
2005:13.3 mil
5-year:62.8 mil
* Genzyme
CEO: Henri Termeer
2005: 19 mil
5-year:60.7 mil
* Humana
CEO: Michael McAllister
2005:2.3 mil
5-year:12.9 mil
* Johnson & Johnson
CEO: William Weldon
2005:6.1 mil
5-year:19.7 mil

* Laboratory Corp America
CEO: Thomas MacMahon
2005:7.9 mil
5-year:41.8 mil
* Eli Lilly
CEO: Sidney Taurel
2005:7.2 mil
5-year:37.9 mil
* McKesson
CEO: John Hammergen
2005: 13.4 mil
5-year:31.2 mil
* Medtronic
CEO: Arthur Collins
2005: 4.7 mil
5-year:39 mil
* Merck Raymond Gilmartin
CEO:
2005: 37.8 mil
5-year:49.6 mil
* PacifiCare Health
CEO: Howard Phanstiel
2005: 3.4 mil
5-year: 8.5 mil

* Pfizer
CEO: Henry McKinnell
2005: 14 mil
5-year: 74 mil
* Well Choice
CEO: Michael Stocker
2005: 3.2 mil
5-year: 10.7 mil
* WellPoint
CEO: Larry Glasscock
2005: 23 mil
5-year: 46.8 mil

I find this disturbing. This is why my rates have skyrocketed. You can bet no Medicare directors make this kind of money!

The CEO of UnitedHealth Group, Dr William McGuire. "He draws $8 million in salary plus bonus, enjoying perks such as personal use of the company jet. He also has amassed one of the largest stock-option fortunes of all time. Unrealized gains on Dr. McGuire's options totaled $1.6 billion, according to UnitedHealth's proxy statement released this month. Even celebrated CEOs such as General Electric Co.'s Jack Welch or International Business Machines Corp.'s Louis Gerstner never were granted so much during their time at the top."

I now live in Canada, which has universal health care. No one here is being "taken care of like a baby", unless you are one.
Taxes are about equivalent as to what I paid on my income in the US. The employers pay health tax (in Ontario) on annual payroll over $400,000, then the employer pays 0.98% to 1.95% of payroll over $400,000 (your employer in the US pays for part or all of your health care benefit IF they even offer one at all). Health care is also funded partially by federal tax (which the US does with your federal taxes as well for Medicaid, Medicare, etc).
leaderofthepack: Yeah, I'd be scared that all of that would happen if it was the US (or Wisconsin) government were running it.
Canada has had universal health care coverage for everyone since 1961.
I get to choose my doctor here. The government has no say in who I pick for my Primary Health Care Provider, nor the hospital I choose to go to. When I was covered by "health care insurance" by my employers in the US for 25 years, many plans had a list of "Primary Health Care Providers" they had contracted with, and I could only see doctors on that list if I didn't want to pay out of pocket for my visit. Those US Insurance plans also picked my hospital for me.
Here, I pay no deductible to see MY chosen doctor. Under US health plans I usually had to meet deductibles and pay co-pays for each visit to the doctor and hospitals "chosen" by my US health plan.
Everyone is covered here. Rich or poor, you have a basic right to health care. In 2 years here, I have not seen the system abused for "every little sniffle". Emergency rooms are used for emergencies here; they are not crowded with poor people using the ER as their primary health care, as is the case in the US.
With everyone having basic health care coverage, employers are better able to cover prescription meds, dental plans, durable medical equipment, etc.
Doctors here are well compensated for their services, and they aren't any more "over-worked" than in the US. In fact, I can usually set up an appointment within a week to see my doctor here for a routine exam, but in the US, with my "insurance-chosen" doctor, I would have waits as long as 3 months.
No system is perfect. I have heard that some people may wait a bit longer for certain procedures (especially away from urban areas, but that happens in the US as well). But overall, the treatments are the same, using the same procedures as you would find in the US.
Overall, I would say that my health care coverage here has been excellent. I think it is a humane country that makes sure no one goes without health care, regardless if a person is a child, or the person who cleans your toilets, or a CEO of a company.

I have several words:
1. Competition
2. Deregulation
3. Expanded providers and/or insurers
4. Ban lobbyists
5. Personal responsibility
These few simple words, if acted upon, could make the healthcare system affordable to all.

Having experience with the Canadian system, I can tell you the problem isn’t increased demand. It’s decreased providers. Because when the state dictates medical compensation, that compensation decreases so the state can save costs. Doctors start looking for other places to work (if you’re Canadian, the US starts looking good). The best college students consider how long it will take to pay off their student loans if they go to med school, and look for something more lucrative, like law. So, you have less medical professionals, and you’re no longer getting all the top students into the field.
.
What you do get is waiting. Lots and lots of waiting. If you have a cold, you don’t bother to go to the doctor, because you know you’ll be there all day. If you need some type of surgery, hope it’s not critical, because otherwise you may not live long enough to get it.
.
If you have no health coverage, you don’t care about any of that, universal care is better than no care. If you have coverage, universal care means a big drop in the level of care you’ll receive.

One economic principle comes into play if the government takes over the health care system. If you lower the cost of medical services, or make them free, you dramatically increase demand for those services. After government takes over, every runny nose will require a visit to the doctor. So will every sneeze, every cough, constipation, diarrhea, every little thing we deal with on our own will now need the care of an expensive professional who will feel overworked and underpaid and in need of unionizing.

jvlmom- you're the exact reason that this thing shouldn't go to the government. When have you ever seen the government do anything that was streamlined and cost effective? We are the richest country in the world, and there has to be a resolution to this, other than giving this freedom to the "State" I can't answer your situation as a solution for all, but living off the government is not the solution. I don't know what the answer to your problem is right now, but putting a large portion of our countries economy in the hands of big government is societal suicide.

In the past 7 years, my health insurance premium has gone up 600% and the deductible has gone up by $1000 during that time! My income did NOT go up 600% unfortunately! The health care system is broken and something has to be done. If your employer pays your insurance, count your blessings! How much are you paying out of your pocket, sannio? leaderofthepack?

While my username might suggest that I am for a universal health care system, I am cautious about our current state government running it. Keep in mind that 10s of thousands of seniors had their social security numbers printed on the outside of envelopes addressed to them that came from our state government. Oh, that happened twice within 12 months, too.

Before this article was published, a copy of the questions asked should have accompanied it. Because it seems to me it was left out on purpose. Why do I get the feeling this is how the questions were posed?
1. With the skyrocketing cost of health care, would you be in favor of a single payer system?
2. Would you be in favor of a system in which any person anywhere could receive the health care they desire, at no cost to them?
3. With the amount of problems occurring in health care today, would you be in favor of Universal Health coverage?

I have a hunch it wasn't asked like this.
1.Would you be in favor of putting the government in charge of 1/8 of our nations GNP?
2. This same government will be in sole charge of which health care provider you can go to.
3. Would you be in favor of Universal health care if your taxes will be increased by 5%, 10%, or 15%?
4. Would you be in favor of a system that in 10 years will be so bloated and unmanageable that it may cause a catastrophic decline in the quality of health care providers?
5. Would you be in favor of a system that a bunch of lawyers, insurance companies and doctors are run by a bunch of politicains?

Yeah, that's sounds like a recipe for disaster. I'll admit, our health care system isn't always the best, but lets not put a bunch of politicians in charge of it. Any time you hear the phrase "State Run" you should be afraid very afraid. Does that phrase sound eerily similar to any of these? State run newspaper, or state run television? Would someone explain to me how they think the government can do something better and more cost efficient than the private sector? If for one second people think that moving the health care system into the public sector is good for us, just remember the times where a government entity purchased the toilet seat for $100.00, or the hammer for $50.00. What do you think a simple run to the doctor is going to be billed at? Don't forget, we still pay for it in our taxes. Don't get Universal Health Care confused with free health care.

Apparently, the majority of people in Wisconsin want to be taken care of like a baby, and like a baby, they will be told what to do, how to do it, and when. Personally, I'd rather live my own life as I see fit, without the government taking care of me. Those babies also have no idea what it would mean if we had social health care in terms of taxes, waste, and abuse.