http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2006/06/policy_why_medi.html

I am constantly amazed at how little people read.  This article.... clearly points out that

"The high cost of drugs and devices is a major reason why our hospital bills are so high"

and then ILLOGICALLY points out that

"—drugs and devices account for "ONLY" 15% of the $2 trillion-plus  that we spend on healthcare each year."

By the way of that 15% about 9% is due to Drug costs... the rest is device costs (things like breast implants, ya know...).

SO how can a cost that is only 15% or so of the total health care cost, be blamed for the 75% increase of an average insurance premium over the past 5 years.... how is that.

False premises are great, just grab a half fact, glue it onto the conclusion you wish, and project your desire.... that is really really smart....

This just goes to show dumbass journalism... is real and alive.  IF they really wanted to get at the drivers of health care costs, they would look to endless regulatory costs, liability insurance, and over jealous aministrative costs.... those are the real killers of health care economies....

NOT the cost of drugs.... or titty implants.

In most developed countries and many developing countries health care is provided to everyone regardless of their ability to pay. The National Health Service, established in 1948 by Clement Atlee's Labour government in the United Kingdom, were the world's first universal health care system provided by government and paid for from general taxation. Alternatively, compulsory government funded health insurance with nominal fees can be provided, as in Italy. Other examples are Medicare in Australia, established in the 1970s by the Labor government, and by the same name Medicare was established in Canada between 1966 and 1984. Universal health care contrasts to the systems like health care in the United States or South Africa, though South Africa is one of the many countries attempting health care reform.[2] The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not provide universal health care.[3][4]

-------

I am a direct benefactor of Medicare/Medicaid...  My mother a Brazilian woman (Father Black American) had 13 children total (yes I agree very irresponsible, and all that stress probably lead to her death at the young age of 40 from heart attack and asthma attack at the same time) I at a young age had heart problems and needed heart surgery... I have had two heart surgeries one at a very young age and another at the age of 12...  Without programs like medicaid/medicare I would without a doubt be dead...  I recently went to Emory Hospital to get a check up and my doctor was saying I'm lucky to be covered under xyz because the check ups I'm getting today easily costs upwards of 20k+ (from the check ups I will have to at some point have another surgery)...  Fortunately with advances in technology they will be able to do the work required without cutting my chest open...

Long story short America is the only wealthy country without some form of Universal Healthcare... Do we say United Kingdom, Australia, Italy, etc. are communist/socialist continents/countries?  Why can't an idea like Universal Healthcare work for USA?

-- Modified on 10/8/2008 3:58:41 PM

-- Modified on 10/8/2008 4:03:36 PM

Why doesn’t the United States have universal health care as a right of citizenship? The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee access to health care as a right of citizenship. 28 industrialized nations have single payer universal health care systems, while 1 (Germany) has a multipayer universal health care system like President Clinton proposed for the United States.


Myth One: The United States has the best health care system in the world.

Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990


Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960


Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.


Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana


Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.


Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation


Myth Two: Universal Health Care Would Be Too Expensive

Fact One: The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care


Fact Two: Federal studies by the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting office show that single payer universal health care would save 100 to 200 Billion dollars per year despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits.


Fact Three: State studies by Massachusetts and Connecticut have shown that single payer universal health care would save 1 to 2 Billion dollars per year from the total medical expenses in those states despite covering all the uninsured and increasing health care benefits


Fact Four: The costs of health care in Canada as a % of GNP, which were identical to the United States when Canada changed to a single payer, universal health care system in 1971, have increased at a rate much lower than the United States, despite the US economy being much stronger than Canada’s.


Conclusion: Single payer universal health care costs would be lower than the current US system due to lower administrative costs. The United States spends 50 to 100% more on administration than single payer systems. By lowering these administrative costs the United States would have the ability to provide universal health care, without managed care, increase benefits and still save money


Myth Three: Universal Health Care Would Deprive Citizens of Needed Services

Fact One: Studies reveal that citizens in universal health care systems have more doctor visits and more hospital days than in the US


Fact Two: Around 30% of Americans have problem accessing health care due to payment problems or access to care, far more than any other industrialized country. About 17% of our population is without health insurance. About 75% of ill uninsured people have trouble accessing/paying for health care.


Fact Three: Comparisons of Difficulties Accessing Care Are Shown To Be Greater In The US Than Canada (see graph)


Fact Four: Access to health care is directly related to income and race in the United States. As a result the poor and minorities have poorer health than the wealthy and the whites.


Fact Five: There would be no lines under a universal health care system in the United States because we have about a 30% oversupply of medical equipment and surgeons, whereas demand would increase about 15%


Conclusion: The US denies access to health care based on the ability to pay. Under a universal health care system all would access care. There would be no lines as in other industrialized countries due to the oversupply in our providers and infrastructure, and the willingness/ability of the United States to spend more on health care than other industrialized nations.



-- Modified on 10/8/2008 4:18:27 PM

Myth Four: Universal Health Care Would Result In Government Control And Intrusion Into Health Care Resulting In Loss Of Freedom Of Choice

Fact One: There would be free choice of health care providers under a single payer universal health care system, unlike our current managed care system in which people are forced to see providers on the insurer’s panel to obtain medical benefits


Fact Two: There would be no management of care under a single payer, universal health care system unlike the current managed care system which mandates insurer preapproval for services thus undercutting patient confidentiality and taking health care decisions away from the health care provider and consumer


Fact Three: Although health care providers fees would be set as they are currently in 90% of cases, providers would have a means of negotiating fees unlike the current managed care system in which they are set in corporate board rooms with profits, not patient care, in mind


Fact Four: Taxes, fees and benefits would be decided by the insurer which would be under the control of a diverse board representing consumers, providers, business and government. It would not be a government controlled system, although the government would have to approve the taxes. The system would be run by a public trust, not the government.


Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care administered by a state public health system would be much more democratic and much less intrusive than our current system. Consumers and providers would have a voice in determining benefits, rates and taxes. Problems with free choice, confidentiality and medical decision making would be resolved
Myth Five: Universal Health Care Is Socialized Medicine And Would Be Unacceptable To The Public
Fact One: Single payer universal health care is not socialized medicine. It is health care payment system, not a health care delivery system. Health care providers would be in fee for service practice, and would not be employees of the government, which would be socialized medicine. Single payer health care is not socialized medicine, any more than the public funding of education is socialized education, or the public funding of the defense industry is socialized defense.


Fact Two: Repeated national and state polls have shown that between 60 and 75% of Americans would like a universal health care system (see The Harris Poll #78, October 20, 2005)


Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care is not socialized medicine and would be preferred by the majority of the citizens of this country
Myth Six: The Problems With The US Health Care System Are Being Solved and Are Best Solved By Private Corporate Managed Care Medicine because they are the most efficient
Fact One: Private for profit corporation are the lease efficient deliverer of health care. They spend between 20 and 30% of premiums on administration and profits. The public sector is the most efficient. Medicare spends 3% on administration.


Fact Two: The same procedure in the same hospital the year after conversion from not-for profit to for-profit costs in between 20 to 35% more


Fact Three: Health care costs in the United States grew more in the United States under managed care in 1990 to 1996 than any other industrialized nation with single payer universal health care


Fact Four: The quality of health care in the US has deteriorated under managed care. Access problems have increased. The number of uninsured has dramatically increased (increase of 10 million to 43.4 million from 1989 to 1996, increase of 2.4% from 1989 to 1996- 16% in 1996 and increasing each year).


Fact Five: The level of satisfaction with the US health care system is the lowest of any industrialized nation.


Fact Six: 80% of citizens and 71% of doctors believe that managed care has caused quality of care to be compromised


Conclusion: For profit, managed care can not solve the US health care problems because health care is not a commodity that people shop for, and quality of care must always be compromised when the motivating factor for corporations is to save money through denial of care and decreasing provider costs. In addition managed care has introduced problems of patient confidentiality and disrupted the continuity of care through having limited provider networks.
Overall Answer to the questions Why doesn’t the US have single payer universal health care when single payer universal health care is the most efficient, most democratic and most equitable means to deliver health care? Why does the United States remain wedded to an inefficient, autocratic and immoral system that makes health care accessible to the wealthy and not the poor when a vast majority of citizens want it to be a right of citizenship?

Conclusion: Corporations are able to buy politicians through our campaign finance system and control the media to convince people that corporate health care is democratic, represents freedom, and is the most efficient system for delivering health care

There is a threat to our national security that is flying under the radar. The threat that I’m talking about has nothing to do with Al Qaeda or other Islamic Terrorists. The threat is actually being perpetrated by Americans who have taken an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States.
    Who am I talking about? The answer is liberals on both the Republican side and Democratic side. These liberals believe there is an inherent right in the Constitution to medical care. They like to call it “free” health care, but if you look at it, their health care comes at a dangerous cost.
    I am not arguing that these misinformed liberals are terrorists. I know that they don’t mean to purposely harm the American public, and I’m sure they believe that in Karl Marx’s utopic Communist system that this is actually a good idea. Hopefully they’ll read this article or just study the basic facts and they will see their plan is unneeded and possibly destructive to every American.
    We should cover the background of the current state of health care first. In 2004 health care was a 1.79 trillion dollar industry which is about 15.5 percent of the national GDP and also roughly 1/6 of our nation debt. There was average spending of $6,167 per person on health care related costs in 2004. I wouldn’t be surprised if that has gone up in recent years.
    The Census Bureau states that there are 46.577 million people in the United States without health care. That seems like a lot. But who makes up that astoundingly large number? The first 9.487 million are what liberals like to call undocumented workers, and what the law likes to call illegal aliens.
    What we’re left with is about 37 million American citizens that are uninsured. That still seems like a lot, especially in the richest country on Earth. However, not all Americans are uninsured because of poverty. There are 8.3 million Americans that are uninsured that make between 50 and 75 thousand dollars. At even the low end of $50,000 an individual could certainly afford health insurance if they so chose. But they’d rather spend it on better vacations, a bigger TV, maybe even a better house and that is their decision. But someone who earns above $75,000 would certainly buy health insurance, right?   That’s not what the facts say. There are 8.74 million Americans that earn above $75,000 per year and still decide not to buy health insurance. And in America they should have that freedom even if we consider it irresponsible.
    Out of 37 million uninsured Americans, 17 million are easily wealthy enough to afford it. That leaves us with roughly 20 million uninsured Americans that make below $50,000. Many of these uninsured Americans actually qualify for programs like Medicare or Medicaid but never take the time to sign up, or don’t realize they are eligible to sign up. Taking this into account, the liberal non-profit group, Kaiser Family Foundation, finds that only about 8.2 million uninsured Americans earn below $50,000 and don’t qualify for government programs.   That means throughout America less than 3 percent of   Americans can’t afford medical insurance and don’t qualify for  any current government programs. And it’s not even that bad. The Congressional Budget Office reports that 45 percent of the 8.2 million that fall through the cracks will be uninsured for four months or less. In reality, less than 1.5 percent of all American citizens will go without insurance for longer than 4 months. This goes to show that the free market will correct itself, even without government intervention.
    I know our health care system has flaws, but is it really that bad? Hillary Clinton just this past weekend in an interview with George Stephanopolous said that she would be willing to garnish every American’s paycheck to put her socialist health care system into effect. This means that she would claim every American’s hard earned dollars to create a government run health care system. This goes to show under a second Clinton presidency your money isn’t yours. It’s just in your possession until the government claims it. If she really was pro-choice in health decisions you would think she would allow Americans the free-will to exempt out of her plan.
    There are two very scary thoughts about the notion of socializing health care. Liberals are trying to take over a sector of our economy that is 15.5 percent of our GDP. Because less than 1.5 percent of Americans don’t have health insurance, liberals are devising a plan to take over 1/7 of our entire economy. I don’t trust the government running my DMV much less my health care decisions.
    The second scary thought is that we currently have the best health care system in the world, and we might lose it. When Europeans need a surgery, do they get in the three month waiting line for a surgery? No, they get in the 13 hour waiting line for a flight here to have their surgery. Sure our system has flaws. But there are other solutions.
    For one thing, increase the number of doctors able to graduate with medical degrees. That quota hasn’t increased since the early 1900s, while our national population has multiplied.    Other solutions include tort reform to lessen the costs of malpractice insurance. Another idea is to allow registered nurses be allowed to perform minor surgeries, they already have the knowledge to do it. Lastly, there should be a trade agreement reached with Canada so pharmaceuticals in America will be allowed to purchase and sell Canadian prescription drugs.
    If the cost of health care can become cheaper and more affordable, the government would be able to expand their current programs to encompass even more poor, uninsured Americans without requiring additional funds. And with more affordable health care, the uninsured wealthy might actually find health care to be a bargain and buy an insurance plan.
    Liberals reading this probably aren’t too scared by the idea of government run health care. So, just to send a shock wave through you: imagine George Bush running your health care plan.
Yeah, I thought so.

Virtually every government program is a complete mess and has tons of fraud, waste, absenteeism, and every other problem.

If you look at Medicare, Medicade, or Workers' Comp as run by the government in California conservative estimates run to one-third fraud and waste.

Does anyone here live out of California?  What is the percent of fraud in your government health care programs?

It may be true that many government programs are necessary, but there can not really be any serious contention that they are efficient.

A substantial number of my friends are teachers in the L.A. Unified School District, and for decades I have heard nothing but nightmares about LAUSD.  The question is whether it is a joke, a crime, or a tragedy.

I was talking with teacher who favored Obama because of health care.  My one question to him was, "Why do you think health care will be run well by the feds after you have been in LAUSD for 10 years." The adminstrative nightmare of a nation wide system as complex as this will be obvious.

He thought that since it would be bigger, it would have more oversight.  

There is an old experssion that sums up how well the state runs things.  "Good enough for government work."

The state of California is the largest purchaser of motorized wheel chairs in the nation because they pay for them for so many people.  (I haven't seen a homeless person in a non-motorized chair for a very long time.)

Being the biggest purchaser, you would think they would be able to cut a bargain with the manufacturer.  

In fact, they pay more than private people or private insurance.  People and insurance companies try to save money, so there is an incentive to try to get a better deal.  The state is paying with "your money," so it doesn't matter to them.

I know other people who sell to the state. This pattern is repeated in dozens of other areas, from medicine, office furniture, materials, food for prisons, cars for state employees, air plane tickets, and so on ad nasuem.  In the vast majority of situations, the state pays more in spite of the buying power it should have because of volume.  Why bargain when it ain't your money.

Well, let's see.

Is a 15% segment of a market significant? Major maybe?

Would changes in that major segment of the market affect the costs of insuring against risk in that market? Could be!

Unlike your fallacious assumption about drugs and devices, the author clearly stated that drugs and devices were "a major reason why our hospital bills are so high", not THE major reason.

Anyway, what does that have to do with the fact that medicare delivers health insurance more efficiently than do private insurers?

If malpractice awards account for a much, much smaller percentage of total health care costs (1% v 15%) than drugs and devices, why do you list that as a major driver of health care costs?


And maybe you can address these issues-

Why does Medicare pay 12% more to Medicare Advantage for identical procedures when MA is administered by private insurance companies who are, you assume,  more efficient than Medicare?

Why did so many private insurers who  initially signed up to deliver MA plans drop out even though they were paid more per patient than regular Medicare patients?

Given that malpractice awards are such a small percentage of overall medical care costs, why are malpractice premiums so high? Couldn't be the inefficiency of the private insurer, could it?

Do you have any support other than ideology for your contention that Medicare is less efficient than private insurance? The actual numbers don't seem to agree with you.

But numbers pale in comparison to ideology to a fundamentalist, don't they?

Myth Four: Universal Health Care Would Result In Government Control And Intrusion Into Health Care Resulting In Loss Of Freedom Of Choice

Fact One: There would be free choice of health care providers under a single payer universal health care system, unlike our current managed care system in which people are forced to see providers on the insurer’s panel to obtain medical benefits


Fact Two: There would be no management of care under a single payer, universal health care system unlike the current managed care system which mandates insurer preapproval for services thus undercutting patient confidentiality and taking health care decisions away from the health care provider and consumer


Fact Three: Although health care providers fees would be set as they are currently in 90% of cases, providers would have a means of negotiating fees unlike the current managed care system in which they are set in corporate board rooms with profits, not patient care, in mind


Fact Four: Taxes, fees and benefits would be decided by the insurer which would be under the control of a diverse board representing consumers, providers, business and government. It would not be a government controlled system, although the government would have to approve the taxes. The system would be run by a public trust, not the government.


Conclusion: Single payer, universal health care administered by a state public health system would be much more democratic and much less intrusive than our current system. Consumers and providers would have a voice in determining benefits, rates and taxes. Problems with free choice, confidentiality and medical decision making would be resolved

does not make your case any more true. Your "facts" are nothing more than wishful thinking, making your conclusions no more factual than the flimsy foundation they are based on.

Nice try though, if you ever start teaching third grade I'm sure many if not most of your students will be mesmorized by your "deductive reasoning" lol

supporting your position that Medicare is less efficient than private insurance?

I am sorry, but I am unable to pull up news stories from the past on moments notice.

I remember reading the story about wheel chairs in the L.A. Times at least a year ago, but I did not make a note of it at the time.

All the other stories are based on similar things that I have read.  

To tell you the truth, I am astounded that people question this. Have you never heard nightmares about government inefficiency?

When someone says "government program," can you honestly tell me that the first things that come to mind are "efficient," "economical," "polite clerks," "prompt service."  

If these are not the words you honestly think of, try finding the words you do think of and apply it to "Gargantuan health care system serving 300,000,000 people out of a central office."

For those of you who question my facts, I ask you to look at your own experiences in life.  Look at the government programs you are in contact with and compare them to private businesses.  

Are you just knocked off your feet at how efficient the post office is?

run system there is no incentive to reduce cost. I urged you to study the Pittsburgh Regional Health Initiative (PRHI). The PRHI's mission is to improve the quality of health care from a bottom up approach rather than a top down bureaucratic program.

In Pittsburgh to make a long story short, hospitals in the region were having a high incidence of death from infections and medical errors. So and intiative was started and implemented by former Treasury of Secretary Paul O'Neill and CEO of Alcoa and through this intiative:

(1)The use of principles as outlined by PHRI has reduced medical errors which has resulted in cost savings and safer hospitals. Safer hospitals also means less litigation less insurnace costs etc. MOre importantly, lives were saved.

(2)Healthcare costs have also been reduced by less hospitalization time. People don't realize that increased hospitalization time is caused by wrong diagnosis and infections i.e staph etc.

(3) Reduce the use of prescription drugs.

(4) Development of Preventive Care intiatives.

There is more I could enlighten you, but instead I urge you to read the website. I myself will plan to enroll in some courses next year. I understand a National Health Care sounds attractive but I would suggest we first learn to develop techniques to reduce costs simliar to programs such as PRHI to improve quality and quantity of health care delivery systems. Inefficient systems will not only be costly in dollars but also lives.



-- Modified on 10/8/2008 7:45:34 PM

because they are underfunded. Those of you who have worked in government know what I'm talking about.

The PRHI sounds like a great program and it's the approach that I would like to see in solving most problems- partnerships among business, government, and civic leaders.

Stats show that the most inefficient systems in terms of both lives and dollars are the PFFS (private fee for service) system, especially in rural areas. Of course, health care systems in rural areas are more likely to be delivering services to poor people and those people are far more likely to have poorer health.

Where is the American pride or is everyone just pragmatic, rather more like pessimistic...

I was actually hoping for better arguments for and against the idea...  Believe me I didn't take the time to write up all of that I simply listed the arguments of researchers, opinion givers, and some agencies/organizations in an organized fashion (all of which did their own case study variation)...  In fact most of the information provided was based on already functioning Universal Healthcare systems...

Nobody seems to believe that America can do it better than the other countries/nations/continents...  

I suppose in the frustration of trying to figure out how to defend or deminish the validity of either argument you just thought saying, "Nice try though, if you ever start teaching third grade I'm sure many if not most of your students will be mesmorized by your "deductive reasoning," was a lot easier than actually taking a stance and defending it...

A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward. -FDR

A conservative is a man who believes that nothing should be done for the first time.
-Alfred Wiggam

Take a stance and defend your stance with something...  


-- Modified on 10/9/2008 12:00:44 AM

improving quality in health care delivering systems. Essentially, what they are doing is improving the case of "do over". Often in health care because of the inherent nature of the bureaucracy mistakes happen. These mistakes cost time, money and lives. By performing the diagnosis and medical treatment plan correctly the first time time and money is saved on the back end i.e. re-diagnosis, treating infections etc. Time is saved and those more patients can be treated. In addition because of the quality care you have less claims and thus lower insurance costs.

PRHI used the same principles of cost containment as first started by Toyota's 14-point quality system. This system though possible in running government programs is improbable. A government system has inherent difficulties not encountered in the market system; unions, regulations, civil merit system, job descriptions, constituents, and the biggest problem, politicians.

Most government agencies deal with underfunding by eliminating programs, asking agencies to use cheaper paper and other stupid penny foolish ideas or increasing revenue i.e. taxes. Yes, I have worked in government and I know.


-- Modified on 10/8/2008 10:03:55 PM

We had government that was dedicated and efficient, pretty much a wonder of the world. What has happened since the 60s has been a matter of conservatives creating self-fulfilling prophecies. Here's what they do:

-Appoint people who hate the agencies that they are heading, or people who are incompetent.

-Freeze pay, bust government labor unions, underfund programs so that employees, like, have to bring their own toilet paper to get through the day.

-Put people in office who generally believe government to be useless to do their jobs half-assed.

-Cut the government budget across the board without regard for laws that demand programs be funded.

-Hijack agencies like the Department of Labor to become management oriented, interested in programs for worker productivity.

And soon, you have a government that's as useless as you've always thought it was.

First, it is not malpractice awards that are troublesome - it is malpractice insurance permiums that are the problem.... why?  Because of the cost of malpractice insurance and the bookkeeping necessary to protect against litigation....

also - "a major reason" and "the MAJOR reason" is spliting hairs.... the article is MISLEADING - and you draw hugh conclusions from it, which is why I disagree with it... it is not fair and unbiased... and that kinda shit just needs to stop.

http://media.www.gcsunade.com/media/storage/paper299/news/2008/02/08/Opinion/Universal.Healthcare.A.Very.Bad.Idea-3196119.shtml


I would start  posting links you would not want  this site to be sued

Links

Many government programs are not underfunded.

It is very common that a government agency is forced to spend money in a rush at the end of the fiscal year because their next appropriation will depend on them using all of the last one.

Again, I don't have a "study" or "article," but this is pretty much common knowledge.

Also, they hire more people than private companies, so it looks like they are short of money. The number of "administrators" in LA schools is huge in relation to the number at private schools.

Finally, every state workers' union back the others so their influence in the Legislature for more money is huge.  

One of the things that has reduced California to its knees is the prison guards union.  And when they are questioned they line up every union behind them.  The regulations that resulted from this union cost billions in the way they calculate overtime.

King Drew, the medical center serving Watts, had to close.  The vast majority of its problems were related to waste.  Doctors were taking salaries and working at private clinics.  And the problems went on and on and on until the inner city lost a hospital.


I repeat: PLEASE TELL ME ONE THING.  In your experience in life, do you really find government to be efficient and cost effective.

I've worked in government, consulted with govt/corporate partnerships, and worked in private industry.

Many government agencies are underfunded, especially now that tax revenue is so much lower. You should see the case loads for social workers, etc. A friend of mine has over 200 cases. Not underfunded?

Yes, my experience is that many government agencies are efficient. My dealings with the Post Office lead me to believe that it's easily as efficient as Ford or my local banks. The schools at which I taught were extremely efficient given their task. The sheriff's department in my local county is very efficient. Even the national welfare system has become much more efficient.

Want inefficiency? How about the big three auto makers spending the last 10 years building SUVs and trucks rather than investing in new technology for fuel efficiency? Waste and fraud? How about the mortgage banking industry? All research that I've seen shows that the part of government with the greatest amount of waste and fraud is national defense. Want to cut that? Why not?

Common knowledge is often very far from accurate.

Like all fundamentalists, you don't actually have anything except a little anecdotal evidence for your beliefs. That's a poor basis for something that is a matter of life and death to so many people.

How ironic.  You say I have nothing more than "anecdotal evidence" for my beliefs, after you just gave a huge dose on anecdotal evidence based on your experiences in government agencies.

It seems that my experiences are obviously not a valid basis of opinion and are just anecdotal evidence, but your experiences are a good basis of opinion.

Finally, anecdotal evidence is often very good.  If someone goes to Superior Court once a week for 15 years and consistenly observes certain behavior, that "anecdotal" experience is probably better than any study.

I remember some time ago there was a study that concluded that 25% of the population did not believe the Holocaust happened.  

Now, I have lived over 50 years. Lived in 3 states, twenty towns, 5 colleges, engaged in numerous activity and met thousands of people.  WHile it is true I did not ask everyone this question, if 25% of the population believed something, you think I would have met one person in all that time.  And yet I never did.

It turns out the study looked at its questions, decided they were poorly phrased, tried it again, and got a different result.

My "anecdotal" experience was far more accurate.

No, I don't have a cite.  I cannot document things I read ten years ago.

You would see that there is actual data to support my claim that Medicare is more efficient than private insurance and that's what the thread is about, right?

Now, how about you get some actual numbers to support your idea that government is more inefficient than private bidness? That would make your claims much more believable than something you think you may have read 10 years ago.

You really think UPS could deliver a letter to California fro me for .42?

How about this statement from their site?

"PRHI is a nonprofit operating arm of the Jewish Healthcare Foundation with funding from local corporations, foundations, health plans and government contracts and grants."

Notice the funding.

Ooooh. It's also one of those scary nonprofits that is running the government!

Seriously, this is where the answers are to our problems- serious people who are interested in promoting the general welfare sitting down with each other to solve real problems. It's too bad the right has worked so hard to demonize everyone who disagrees with them and made it much more difficult for people with different views to work together.

Bottom line:  Before this thread started and you became invested in your position, as I have in mine, tell me the truth:

In the past, based on your experiences in life and things you had read about civics and government, when you would hear the words "big government program," did you first think "efficiency and good service?"  

Can you really say, "Yes."

And this will be one of the biggest in history.

You may well have thought "efficient," and, as with everyone, our experiences in life differ.  (It is said that experience is the worst teacher because it teaches everyone something else.)

I will just say that with the exception of two agencies, this has never been my impression.

Look for The Case for Universal Healthcare::

http://www.amsa.org/uhc/uhcres.cfm

Argument posted above::

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm

Good Article about Univ. Healthcares Dirty Secrets::

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-tanner5apr05,0,2227144.story

Poll shows many Republicans favor universal healthcare::

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/poll-shows-many-republicans-favor-universal-healthcare-gays-in-military-2007-06-28.html