Notre Dame Files Lawsuit Over Obamacare

[irishff1014]

There are so many opinions on this that this will be a huge debate. However there are alot of facts to go along with this and i have read alot of very good post by a few posters. As one that pays for my insurance that no matter what happens i can make the decisions. With the plans that the government wants to do you would not have this choice. Along with they would decide what care you get. They can say that they want to help in the begining but it would change. They would determine if you end up with stage 4 cancer of what kind of treatment you would able to get. They may so ok you go through surgery and radiation. Or they may say that they are only going to give you meds so that you are comfortable. Which is bullshit IMO. Doctors tell people they have stage 4 cancer everyday of the week that people fight with everything they have to beat it. So they are going to only raise the deaths from diseases that the Government chooses the care that you recieve. Working in the EMS field i have talked to alot of Doctors and nurses that are NOT Fans of this idea. EVERYONE should have the right to fight what ever sickness or disease they may have. I know alot of people think that Doctors are just there for the money and thats not all true most doctors care alot about helping people they just can't get attatched to everycase

 

[irishff1014]

I've thought about this, too. The cost of medical school should be offset, obviously. If attorneys work in public service after law school, they pay a reduced rate on federal student loan debt for ten years, then their debt is forgiven. Similarly, doctors that accept government insurance could have their debt forgiven. Essentially, we should pay to educate and train our medical professionals if we are going to treat medicine as a type of service rather than as a private industry. Doctors that want to do boob jobs instead of working in an ER would be free to pursue that on their own.[/QUOTE]

So what you are saying since these doctors help women that have struggles with breast cancer and lost either one or more breast should be punhished? Its not their fault that they ended up with this. They didn't ask for it. They deserve the chance to feel and look somewhat the same they used too.

 

[IrishLax]

I completely agree with your breakdown of the numbers, but could one of the reasons that african americans and latinos have a much shorter life expectancy be that they are much more likely to not have insurance. 40% of hispanics and 21% of african americans.
More Americans Uninsured in 2011

I think that our healthcare system is broken, but it isn't just the insurance companies fault. Everyone shares some blame. Ranging from the obvious Insurance companies and hospitals to the less obvious (doctors, and to a certain extent our education system that puts them hundereds of thousands of dollars in debt) to patients (too many ER visits for nonemergencies, not getting preventitive healthcare, not living a healthy lifestyle).

While I am fan of a single payer system (and yes it has flaws), I am not always a fan of a wholesale government takeover of the healthcare market (meaning they shouldn't take over all the hospitals and make all doctors their employees). Having said that I am open to any well thought out ideas that would actually lower the cost of healthcare and gets it under control.

Certainly seems like that is, or at least could be, one of the factors. A lack of health care obviously wouldn't significantly affect the development of cardiovascular disease or cancer... but it certainly would affect the ability to treat such conditions. The whole illegal immigrant thing is another factor far too complex for me to even try to speak on accurately without more research.... but it seems that a very large issue is that a big percentage of people are not here legally and therefor struggle to get the type of jobs that have health benefits attached.

 

[notredomer23]

Not to change the subject on this great one you guys are having, but outside of the medical aspect of it being unconstitutional, how is the mandate and the fine for not providing insurance consitutional as well? Plenty of companies are just going to drop their insurance plans altogether because it would be much less expensive to pay the fine, putting insurance providers out of business or at least forcing them to downsize big time. I will be honest I have not read this whole thread, but has this been discussed? Obamacare will put hundreds of thousands out of work adding to our 14.3% unemployment rate(real unemployment rate). I am just confused how a bill can be consitutional when it 1) forces someone or a company to buy or provide a product, and then 2) they will receive a fine if they don't. Getting away from all the other unconstitutionalities of the bill, I would say this is a pretty big one.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I've thought about this, too. The cost of medical school should be offset, obviously. If attorneys work in public service after law school, they pay a reduced rate on federal student loan debt for ten years, then their debt is forgiven. Similarly, doctors that accept government insurance could have their debt forgiven. Essentially, we should pay to educate and train our medical professionals if we are going to treat medicine as a type of service rather than as a private industry. Doctors that want to do boob jobs instead of working in an ER would be free to pursue that on their own.

So what you are saying since these doctors help women that have struggles with breast cancer and lost either one or more breast should be punhished? Its not their fault that they ended up with this. They didn't ask for it. They deserve the chance to feel and look somewhat the same they used too.

No, that is pretty clearly not what I was saying. I think I was pretty clear that under the system I support, elective surgery would not be covered. If the surgery is to repair a body part that has been ravaged by cancer then most people wouldn't consider that surgery to be elective.

If you want to argue with me I'm sure there is plenty we could argue about. No need to pick the low hanging fruit and try to make it seem like my differentiating between cosmetic surgery and medically necessary surgery belies a lack of sympathy on my part for cancer survivors. Grow up.

Also, I never proposed punishing anyone. First making doctors take government run insurance is going to drive people out of the profession, and now not allowing them to take it is punishing them?

 

[Black Irish]

First off, for those who are throwing around the USA's mortality rates, those numbers aren't just reflective of our health care system's effectiveness. A big component in that number is violent crime, which, sadly, America has a problem with compared to other 1st world nations and has nothing to do with health care. All the people dying in America aren't just because they don't have health insurance. The best health care in the world doesn't mean a thing when your head gets blown off by some street thug.

Secondly, maybe we need to consider that people don't pay enough for health care. I know that sounds crazy, but I'm just talking about everyday stuff. We still need insurance to cover catastrophic medical problems, but I think we've been conditioned to think that we shouldn't pay anything for basic medical. I've heard people whine about a $15 co-pay, but have no problem dropping $400 on an Iphone. I've worked in the restaurant business for awhile, and people say that they can't afford to go to the doctor because they don't have insurance. Seriously? You won't cough up $150-$200 for an annual check-up but will rack up a $50-$100 bar tab after work every Friday night?

For those of you who think I'm being draconian, consider that people may make healthier choices when it's their dollars on the line. If you are driving your own medical costs up through smoking, eating poorly, and not exercising then you'll probably get your act together if it's costing you more. It's the same thing when you start paying your own electric bill; you realize why dad was such a thermostat nazi all those years growing up.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I didn't know much about healthcare until I worked for a provider, and I can now say with a good degree of certainity that the government monopolizing either insurers or providers would be abolutely disasterous.

What people don't realize is that

(1) Insurers make care more affordable. They're basically negotiating on behalf of a large block of patients for a better deal.

(2) Insurers compete among themselves requiring them to innovate, constantly operate more efficiently, and haggle to provide better rates to larger providers (usually hospitals). Not to mention compete with employers on plans and rates.

So employers and providers always have other options in the market, and the insurers are incentivized to streamline operations.

If we go to a single-payer system, the entire benefit of #2 is lost. We'll basically have a Medicare system, which is the most inefficient, backward, bureaucratic, political, nonsensical behemoth in America. No hyperbole.

Under Medicare providers' compensation is tied to a nonsensical fee schedule that changes with the will of lobbyists and Congress, patients are routinely denied because of low reimbursement, bureaucrats set the reimbursement requirements above the normal standard of care, putting you out of business, and paid-guns are given commissions to audit your shops and take-back Medicare revenues for the smallest chart discrepancies.

The current estimations of the underfunding between Medicare and Obamacare, by 2032, is $100 trillion dollars. That's trillion with a "T." Take that Social Security.

 

[FrankMA]

I didn't know much about healthcare until I worked for a provider, and I can now say with a good degree of certainity that the government monopolizing either insurers or providers would be abolutely disasterous.

What people don't realize is that

(1) Insurers make care more affordable. They're basically negotiating on behalf of a large block of patients for a better deal.

(2) Insurers compete among themselves requiring them to innovate, constantly operate more efficiently, and haggle to provide better rates to larger providers (usually hospitals). Not to mention compete with employers on plans and rates.

So employers and providers always have other options in the market, and the insurers are incentivized to streamline operations.

If we go to a single-payer system, the entire benefit of #2 is lost. We'll basically have a Medicare system, which is the most inefficient, backward, bureaucratic, political, nonsensical behemoth in America. No hyperbole.

Under Medicare providers' compensation is tied to a nonsensical fee schedule that changes with the will of lobbyists and Congress, patients are routinely denied because of low reimbursement, bureaucrats set the reimbursement requirements above the normal standard of care, putting you out of business, and paid-guns are given commissions to audit your shops and take-back Medicare revenues for the smallest chart discrepancies.

The current estimations of the underfunding between Medicare and Obamacare, by 2032, is $100 trillion dollars. That's trillion with a "T." Take that Social Security.

#2 is a very valid point. Anything run without competition by any government; local, state, or federal is a disaster, not only in health care, but in everything else. Look at the public school systems around the country with bloated budgets and students who come out and can’t even read. In my town we had a budget meeting last night with the school committee and some parents complaining about the school budget. They should go look at the local Catholic schools which run on a budget with much less money spend per student and better academics. In MA we have the MBTA- Mass transit system losing billions of dollars with a bloated bureaucracy and poor service. Any time they run a deficit, they come begging for more tax payer cash. They get some of that through gas taxes, paid by people who will not use it and in most cases cannot use it. No completion is horrible for everything including health care.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o> </o>

 

[Rhode Irish]

As far as taxpayers paying for public transit, they may not use it but to suggest they do not benefit from it is dumb. The more people use it, the less traffic, and therefore less accidents and wear and tear on the road, and therefore less roads under construction, which costs money and also leads to more traffic, which also increases the amount of time people are in their cars and therefore not working and being productive....I mean, I could go on endlessly. And that doesn't even get into the environmental and conservation advantages of public transit that benefit everyone, not just the riders.

I disagree with the rest of your post, too, but if you don't even intuitively understand what I posted above (and also the difference between public and private schools) then getting into the rest of it would obviously be a waste of my time.

 

[Buster Bluth]

They should go look at the local Catholic schools which run on a budget with much less money spend per student and better academics.

As someone who went to Catholic schools for 11/12 years (and a private independent school the other year), and then coached at a public school in the hood, the difference between public and private schools is night and day.

It comes down to wayyyyy more than just budgets. Catholic schools are a privilege, and most families treat it with respect because of that. For a lot of inner-city public schools, school is just free daycare for many parents. The level of parental support is so completely different too, they are opposite ends of the spectrum, on average.

So many kids arrive to public schools and are, to be frank, already screwed. They literally don't have parents. On many occasions they are lucky and their grandparents raise them. When I coached at Toledo Libber (in the hood of hoods for Toledo), it was systematic that girls would get pregnant and try to claim that their child was retarded so that they'd get a bigger government check. It was sickening. I would say <20% of kids had present fathers too.

So I guess I'm just saying that to juxtapose the Catholic school model and the public school model is unfair to both parties. But I will agree with the notion that no amount of money will fix public schools. Yes, adequate school buildings are necessary, but...in my amateur opinion, you won't fix public schools until you fix welfare. If you're living on the government's dime, you forfeit the right to be a terrible parent. That's the root of the problem, in my opinion.

It's also basically a fact that if inner-city teachers weren't paid more, then they wouldn't put up with the headaches and would just get a job elsewhere...thus exacerbating the problem.

 

[FLDomer]

As far as taxpayers paying for public transit, they may not use it but to suggest they do not benefit from it is dumb. The more people use it, the less traffic, and therefore less accidents and wear and tear on the road, and therefore less roads under construction, which costs money and also leads to more traffic, which also increases the amount of time people are in their cars and therefore not working and being productive....I mean, I could go on endlessly.
QUOTE]

Public transportation is a great benefit to those who want and choose to use it. No one is being mandated to either take public transportation or be fined.

I agree with you on one thing Rhode, this could go on endlessly! I am not going to force you to take my opinion or bill you if you don't, that is what is great about this country we are free to chose our thoughts and beliefs.

 

[Buster Bluth]

As far as taxpayers paying for public transit, they may not use it but to suggest they do not benefit from it is dumb. The more people use it, the less traffic, and therefore less accidents and wear and tear on the road, and therefore less roads under construction, which costs money and also leads to more traffic, which also increases the amount of time people are in their cars and therefore not working and being productive....I mean, I could go on endlessly. And that doesn't even get into the environmental and conservation advantages of public transit that benefit everyone, not just the riders.

I disagree with the rest of your post, too, but if you don't even intuitively understand what I posted above (and also the difference between public and private schools) then getting into the rest of it would obviously be a waste of my time.

I'll comment on the public transit later. It's calc time..

 

[PerthDomer]

Once upon a time public transit was a free market endeavor. Then the city of New York regulated the hell out of the subway forcing it to go bankrupt and the city took control.

I just don't understand the thought process that leads one to believe that a government can run a system like health care or education more efficiently than the free market. I can see wanting to make sure everyone has access to the system, but I don't get why everyone thinks "hmmm medicare has distorted prices and really ruined this system. If only the government had a little more power"

 

[FrankMA]

As far as taxpayers paying for public transit, they may not use it but to suggest they do not benefit from it is dumb. The more people use it, the less traffic, and therefore less accidents and wear and tear on the road, and therefore less roads under construction, which costs money and also leads to more traffic, which also increases the amount of time people are in their cars and therefore not working and being productive....I mean, I could go on endlessly. And that doesn't even get into the environmental and conservation advantages of public transit that benefit everyone, not just the riders.

I disagree with the rest of your post, too, but if you don't even intuitively understand what I posted above (and also the difference between public and private schools) then getting into the rest of it would obviously be a waste of my time.

I don't disagree with the value of public transportation. My problem is with the waste in the system here in MA. and that waste is mainly the result of a goverment system run without any competition. The same is true of every government program. As far as schools go, you can look beyond even Catholic schools here in ma. You have charter schools in some cities whcih are basically private, for profit schools, run with taxpayer money but they are run in competition with public schools and other private schools. They are run far more efficiently than public schools because they have to compete.

 

[connor_in]

I didn't know much about healthcare until I worked for a provider, and I can now say with a good degree of certainity that the government monopolizing either insurers or providers would be abolutely disasterous.

What people don't realize is that

(1) Insurers make care more affordable. They're basically negotiating on behalf of a large block of patients for a better deal.

(2) Insurers compete among themselves requiring them to innovate, constantly operate more efficiently, and haggle to provide better rates to larger providers (usually hospitals). Not to mention compete with employers on plans and rates.

So employers and providers always have other options in the market, and the insurers are incentivized to streamline operations.

If we go to a single-payer system, the entire benefit of #2 is lost. We'll basically have a Medicare system, which is the most inefficient, backward, bureaucratic, political, nonsensical behemoth in America. No hyperbole.

Under Medicare providers' compensation is tied to a nonsensical fee schedule that changes with the will of lobbyists and Congress, patients are routinely denied because of low reimbursement, bureaucrats set the reimbursement requirements above the normal standard of care, putting you out of business, and paid-guns are given commissions to audit your shops and take-back Medicare revenues for the smallest chart discrepancies.

The current estimations of the underfunding between Medicare and Obamacare, by 2032, is $100 trillion dollars. That's trillion with a "T." Take that Social Security.

I think one of the best innovations under #2 is the combo of HSA and high deductible health insurance. This has brought the cost of things into a far better perspective as people are now realizing the costs of things as they pay for it out of the HSA (but the insurance carrier is still getting you their negotiated lower cost). Also, along with this many carriers have instituted wellness plans that give either breakes on rates or lowering of the deductible based on regular medical checkups and compliance with bringing yourself into a healthier you (bringing down weight, lowering cholesterol numbers, etc).

 

[Rhode Irish]

I just don't understand the thought process that leads one to believe that a government can run a system like health care or education more efficiently than the free market. I can see wanting to make sure everyone has access to the system, but I don't get why everyone thinks "hmmm medicare has distorted prices and really ruined this system. If only the government had a little more power"

It really depends on your definition of "efficiency." Maybe if you are a shareholder of a big health insurance provider and you're getting a nice dividend check, you think it is being run efficiently. On the other hand, if you've been denied an insurance claim and face a choice between serious health consequences or economic ruin, maybe you don't think the system is very efficient.

Maybe you think public transport is inefficient because it does not make money for the government. But if you depend on public transportation getting you to where you need to be on schedule everyday, then you probably think the system is pretty efficient.

If you think medicare is the reason we are running budget deficits, maybe you think it is inefficient. But if you are being kept alive by the prescriptions the system allows you to have access to, you probably think the system is efficient.

 

[PerthDomer]

By inefficient I mean resources are misallocated, prices are artificially inflated, etc. etc. People were not dying on the streets of curable diseases before medicare was instituted. Doctors worked pro bono, churches and individuals helped foot the bill for the less fortunate etc. etc.

I think Friedman said it the best

Milton Friedman - Greed - YouTube

 

[PerthDomer]

I think public transpo is inefficient because as a gov. run operation by nature it cannot respond as efficiently to consumer demand as a private system would.

 

[aaronb]

I didn't know much about healthcare until I worked for a provider, and I can now say with a good degree of certainity that the government monopolizing either insurers or providers would be abolutely disasterous.

What people don't realize is that

(1) Insurers make care more affordable. They're basically negotiating on behalf of a large block of patients for a better deal.

(2) Insurers compete among themselves requiring them to innovate, constantly operate more efficiently, and haggle to provide better rates to larger providers (usually hospitals). Not to mention compete with employers on plans and rates.

So employers and providers always have other options in the market, and the insurers are incentivized to streamline operations.

If we go to a single-payer system, the entire benefit of #2 is lost. We'll basically have a Medicare system, which is the most inefficient, backward, bureaucratic, political, nonsensical behemoth in America. No hyperbole.

Under Medicare providers' compensation is tied to a nonsensical fee schedule that changes with the will of lobbyists and Congress, patients are routinely denied because of low reimbursement, bureaucrats set the reimbursement requirements above the normal standard of care, putting you out of business, and paid-guns are given commissions to audit your shops and take-back Medicare revenues for the smallest chart discrepancies.

The current estimations of the underfunding between Medicare and Obamacare, by 2032, is $100 trillion dollars. That's trillion with a "T." Take that Social Security.

The insurance provider didn't do this free of cost did they?

That is the biggest problem with the 3rd payer system in general. 1 out of every 2.3 dollars spent on health care is going to an insurance provider.

If there was a way to eliminate that overhead you could in theory eliminate 43% of the cost of our healthcare system. Just by eliminating the middle men who don't actually provide any medical services.

 

[Black Irish]

The insurance provider didn't do this free of cost did they?

That is the biggest problem with the 3rd payer system in general. 1 out of every 2.3 dollars spent on health care is going to an insurance provider.

If there was a way to eliminate that overhead you could in theory eliminate 43% of the cost of our healthcare system. Just by eliminating the middle men who don't actually provide any medical services.

I'd say those savings would disappear pretty quickly when you consider that if the federal government took over health care administration a whole new level of bureaucracy would have to be installed to run it. We're talking about something way bigger than Medicare/Medicaid because every citizen would have to be covered. You'd have a central administration in Washington along with regional and local offices all over the country having to pay lots of employees.

Also, as others have previously mentioned, insurance companies do provide services (e.g. negotiating costs on behalf of large blocks of members, driving costs down through competition). They don't just suck money out of the system while doing nothing.

 

[aaronb]

I'd say those savings would disappear pretty quickly when you consider that if the federal government took over health care administration a whole new level of bureaucracy would have to be installed to run it. We're talking about something way bigger than Medicare/Medicaid because every citizen would have to be covered. You'd have a central administration in Washington along with regional and local offices all over the country having to pay lots of employees.

Also, as others have previously mentioned, insurance companies do provide services (e.g. negotiating costs on behalf of large blocks of members, driving costs down through competition). They don't just suck money out of the system while doing nothing.

Except the infrastructure is already there. You could run it as a hybrid of the VA Hospitals and Medicare. Then you could set your rates like they do with medicare and then give doctors the option of opting in or not.

The only reason that every other industrialized nation other than ours has this and we don't is simple.

The insurance lobby is too powerful and they donate to candidates on both sides of the isle.

It's why the 1993 Clinton National healthcare initiative failed. It's why Obamacare was re-written and watered down. It's why Bush passed the medicare part D script giveaway to the insurance industry.

It's not that Government is inherently bad. It's just that money and contributions buy power and influence and nothing of substance EVER gets done.

 

[PerthDomer]

Speaking as a medical student... If you turned our medical system into a compromise of the VA and medicare... I weep for humanity.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

It's not that Government is inherently bad. It's just that money and contributions buy power and influence and nothing of substance EVER gets done.

1) Remove evil corporate money from Washington;
2) Grant government technocrats unfettered power over every aspect of American life;
3) ???
4) Enjoy our statist utopia!

So simple, a Bolshevik could do it.

 

[aaronb]

1) Remove evil corporate money from Washington;
2) Grant government technocrats unfettered power over every aspect of American life;
3) ???
4) Enjoy our statist utopia!

So simple, a Bolshevik could do it.

I guess I just don't view the word socialism as a dirty word. Some things are better left to the open market. Some things are better left to a productive government.

Most modern societies are generally a hybrid of the two.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Only someone who doesn't understand Medicare could ever want anything to be like Medicare.

 

[FrankMA]

1) Remove evil corporate money from Washington;
2) Grant government technocrats unfettered power over every aspect of American life;
3) ???
4) Enjoy our statist utopia!

So simple, a Bolshevik could do it.

Sarcasm I know. Permit me a little more.
Yes, maybe then we can enjoy the same type of utopia the Bolsheviks brought to the Soviet Union.

 

[PerthDomer]

OK, if it's a mixture you want what things are the role of the government and what are the role of the market? Can you provide criteria to make this distinguishment? Is there anything else you can think of you want the government to run?

 

[Black Irish]

Except the infrastructure is already there. You could run it as a hybrid of the VA Hospitals and Medicare. Then you could set your rates like they do with medicare and then give doctors the option of opting in or not.

The only reason that every other industrialized nation other than ours has this and we don't is simple.

The insurance lobby is too powerful and they donate to candidates on both sides of the isle.

It's why the 1993 Clinton National healthcare initiative failed. It's why Obamacare was re-written and watered down. It's why Bush passed the medicare part D script giveaway to the insurance industry.

It's not that Government is inherently bad. It's just that money and contributions buy power and influence and nothing of substance EVER gets done.

"The infrastructure is already there"? Medicare covers people 65 and older, Medicaid's for poor people, and the VA is for vets. Now how about the huge chunk of people, like me, who don't fall into any of these categories? No way these programs just get expanded to include everyone else. A whole new system will be put in place, like Britain's NHS. A system that has cover over 300 million people. We're talking big money and big tax increases to cover it all.

And as far as the medical insurance industry lobbying goes, well, why shouldn't they? Do you expect them to stand by and let their industry get legislated out of existence? Don't get me wrong, lobbyists probably have more sway than they should on Capitol Hill, but insurers aren't doing anything that other industries are doing. If what they are doing is inherently harmful (which is not the case) than eliminate them. But getting rid of medical insurers so that the government can instead be the one to ration care and decide what's elective and what's life saving just substitutes one problem for another. Except with your "no medical insurance industry" utopia, you can't shop for a better deal because there is no alternative except paying out of your own pocket.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I guess I just don't view the word socialism as a dirty word. Some things are better left to the open market. Some things are better left to a productive government.

Most modern societies are generally a hybrid of the two.

We didn't become the wealthiest and most powerful empire in the world by copying "most modern societies", by which you really mean European social democracies.

As I mentioned earlier, they're small, wealthy, culturally and ethnically homogenous, and they have relatively low income disparity. In other words, what works over there doesn't have much relevance to what will work in our huge, culturally and ethnically heterogeneous society with large income disparities.

Single payor could probably work in America, but Obamacare isn't even close to single payor, and it's doubtful a true single payor system could ever muster enough political support to pass here. If we can get away from the third party payor system, there are plenty of plausible market-based solutions that could work well. But the statists on the American left never let a good crisis go to waste, so it's "single payor or bust".

I still haven't read a single sensible justification in this thread for why a functional market in health care services is fundamentally impossible.

 

[connor_in]

Except the infrastructure is already there. You could run it as a hybrid of the VA Hospitals and Medicare. Then you could set your rates like they do with medicare and then give doctors the option of opting in or not.

The only reason that every other industrialized nation other than ours has this and we don't is simple.

The insurance lobby is too powerful and they donate to candidates on both sides of the isle.

It's why the 1993 Clinton National healthcare initiative failed. It's why Obamacare was re-written and watered down. It's why Bush passed the medicare part D script giveaway to the insurance industry.

It's not that Government is inherently bad. It's just that money and contributions buy power and influence and nothing of substance EVER gets done.

The infrstructure is not already there...this is evident from two major points..

1) 0bamacare has funds set aside to grow an put in place the necessary bureauacracy needed to handle it all (and like most govt agencies have probably undergiessed the budget by at least 5x)
2) the waiting and snafus encountered in Medicaid, Medicare, and the VA system is abhorrent and an unmitigated disaster

Also, your estimation of the reason it isn't done here is clouded by your views on the subject (as are all of ours), but there are myriad reasons for such a system not being in place it is not as simple as 1 or 2 things. I would like to bring up what I think has tended to be a big reason...whenever someone looks at Canada, Britain, any of the other govt run healthcares (including our own medicare/medicaid/va)...you need approval to get things done (RATIONING). Now you need approval to get things done in our current system as well, but they approve a far greater percentage than govt run care...also, if your insurance says no now, you can do it anyway if you find another way to pay (my family did in vitro procedures by taking out loans, not covered on ins)...if govt runs everything, those options will disappear as they have in the other countries whose people come here to get things done that won't go thru back home