Oh I thought that when one poses a question one is seeking an answer...
We too believe freedom is a basic human right but what good is freedom if your dead?
You didn't address the fact that you pay for the other services I use (education etc.).

Good thoughts Canuck. I'm always learning and this was a good analysis.

If density were the issue -- we'd be looking at higher survival rates in the E.U. The hypothesis that cancer is simply not being diagnosed in the States for the uninsured is interesting. No one is denied treatment. I would assume that in a worst case scenario eventually someone would show-up on death's door in an emergency room and get diagnosed just before death.

Of course, the more plausible scenario is that cancer treatment is simply superior in the States.

Cost is another issue. Cost is a problem and it needs to be rectified. The misconception is that it is the free market driving-up costs. I detailed in the other thread how this is simply not the case.

I know of few people willing to die rather than pay (or go into debt) for the treatment they need. Nobody should be asked to go into bankruptcy to keep from dying, but let's get our priorities straight. Again, needed treatment is always provided no matter how destitute. Let's work to get costs down in such a way that keeps people alive.

You stated your opinion based on biased information, and the opinions of like minded ideologues. One of the articles you posted stated that their findings could be disputed. Another stated that healthcare is a cost plus enterprise. Ron Paul blamed inflation and the monetary policy of the government for cost increases, yet healthcare costs rise at twice the inflation rate. Go figure. Your mind is made up, and there is no reason to debate. But please don't post your opinion as fact unless you can prove that healthcare providers don't make a profit, and a guaranteed one at that.

I'm begging for debate. Show me how I'm wrong -- please. I want nothing more than to trust that we're headed the right direction.

1) Healthcare companies making a profit is in no way proof that they have inflated prices. Proctor and Gamble, Sears, and GE all make profit, yet the cost of their goods and services represent a smaller percentage of household income than in countries embracing socialism? Why? Take an economics class, please.

2) If profit were the sole reason for a healthcare system in crisis, why did costs not explode exponentially until medicaid and medicare were introduced and the government incented BC/BS-style preventative coverage to crowd pout all other insurers? We've had private healthcare for two-hundred years, but only recently has it been cost prohibitive to pay for insurance and for catastrophic care.

3) The University of Minnesota and the World Health Organization are hardly institutions of like-minded ideologues. And, I'm still waiting for you to justify your statement that I mis-represented the facts inthe articles I referenced.

I'm sure my postions aren't flawless,a nd I'm sure you can take issue with parts of my philosophy. So, let's have it. You can keep calling me an ideologue post after post after post.

So, is my mind made-up? Yes. Not because I'm not willing to listen, but nobody -- and I mean nobody -- has been able to show me where I'm wrong. Ask Leah-Ann, when called on a factual error, I will be the first to acknowledge my mistake. I struggled mightily in the last election and those who know me know that I painfully saw Obama as the lesser of two evils and only after allowing gentlemen like you to shape my opinions.

So, are you up to the challenge? You may just win -- otherwise, please stop calling me an ideologue if you aren't willing to do anything else than throw barbs from the periphery.

canuck, you have 1/10 the population. Of course you can afford to offer health care. Tell us how the US can afford to do the same for ten times the population? Be specific.

Other countries can figure out how to do it but the US can't??? C'mon! You are already spending about 15% of your GDP on the health care that you have yet the other countries are spending less than 10%. Yes you have about 10 times the population of Canada but then you should also have 10 times the number of people paying taxes. If you would remove the 'for profit' aspect of your healthcare like you have done for education, social security, defence etc. then you might have a chance. There is a 'for profit' sector in Canadian health care (lab, X-ray, physio, clinics, nursing homes etc.) but they are regulated. If the company figures they can't provide the care and still make a profit then they get out of health care. If you research the system you'll find lots of companies operating in Canada even American ones...
However, as you said to me in another thread...
"Canuck, I'm not in the mood to do any research for you. Ever. Do you know how to google? Trying keeping up in the future."

I wouldn't hold-up education and social security as examples of great results when government controls the system. As for defense, just like health care, it works for those who can throw enough money at it.

Again, I hear everyone saying that the problem rests in how much it costs, yet nobody seems to be in favor of looking at why it got expensive to begin with. Forgive me, but I would think that to be a prerequisite for recommending solutions.

skippy's question has validity if rephrased to include the fact that our demographics offer unique challenges compared to Canada.

Canuck -- I value your perspective because you live with the Canadian system -- I learn when you post and I thank you.

Otter- I will have to decline your offer to spend countless hours in a lengthy debate. Unfortunately I work for an employer that demands long hours from me this time of year. My primary function is to estimate the costs of doing business which includes material, labor ( including perks and benefits), equipment, administration, and supervision. On top of those costs my employer requires an 8% return on his investment to pay for his living expenses, and of course create a marginal profit. Inflation doesn’t occur all at once, but it does accumulate through the year. Based on my records it’s running about 4% per year. That cost is fairly static (plus or minus 1%) and affects all costs except benefits. In the state I live in “private” healthcare insurance goes up 8-10% per year. That’s really not a problem as long as our customers are willing to pay the additional costs of doing business. Several of the employees have already developed “ pre-existing conditions” so our ability to shop health care services is non-existent. We are forced to stay with our present health care supplier, or not be able to insure employees under new policies that exclude “pre-existing”. This of course is not a problem as long as our customers are wiling to pay the additional costs of doing business.

Unfortunately, this year our clients have had their profits reduced by health care costs rising at twice the rate of inflation, and have not been able to save the necessary capital required to upgrade their facilities. This of course has reduced our ability to produce the same volume of business necessary to keep the same number of employees we had last year. Those employees remaining have already met with management and shown the costs of benefits. The choice they have is to forego a raise, or eliminate their health care benefits. Needless to say the job I do is a very busy one that requires lots of my time, which precludes my ability to spend countless hours responding to a request on a chat link.

Maybe you could do me a favor. Maybe you could explain to me why “private” healthcare costs increase at twice the rate of inflation without anyone questioning those increases. Maybe you could explain why the cost of Medicare (49% of healthcare costs in America) is regulated by the federal government, yet the cost of private health care (51% of health care cost) isn’t. Maybe you could explain to my how Ron Paul states that the cost of health insurance goes up because of inflation when in fact health care costs go up at twice the rate of inflation. In essence between 2002-2007 the cost of healthcare increased nearly 50% above the cost of inflation. I would gladly accept a 50% increase in gross profits. To claim the healthcare industry isn’t in the business of creating profits for the investors goes against the very principles of the capitalistic system you support. Maybe you could explain to me why CIGNA is returning profits at 7% when the economy is in the dumps.

canuck, I said that and yet did indeed do your homework for you, as I knew you were not interested in the truth, merely in implying that I was wrong. Don't ever again demand that I do that for you, you're not worth it. Nor are you honorable as ignoring my research for you so clearly illustrates.

H20 -- I understand the demands of work and I am fortunate that I have time off coupled with the holiday this week. Thanks for the continued discussion.

However, that's quite a lengthy response for someone not wanting to engage in debate. You are off-the-hook from responding to my inquiries, but I have a new list from you -- lovely! I would think you'd at least like to substantiate your charges that I mis-represent the articles I post, but as this is the third request for this, I'll stop now -- it's obviously not coming.

1) "Maybe you could explain to me why “private” healthcare costs increase at twice the rate of inflation without anyone questioning those increases."

Nobody is questioning the increases? Huh? Question all you want. My Master's Degree is in H.R. Insurance costs have been the single biggest discusion topic among those dealing with labor expenses for nearly a decade now. As I keep saying, if you truly inquire as to why it's increasing, you'll find an unavoidable truth about how we got into this mess.

2)"Maybe you could explain why the cost of Medicare (49% of healthcare costs in America) is regulated by the federal government, yet the cost of private health care (51% of health care cost) isn’t."

I don't know where those figures come from, but assuming they're true, what's the point? Is 49% of the U.S. population on medicare? If not, why is taking up 49% of total costs? It could be those needing medical care most and thus it is more expensive, or it could be that the government run care is less efficient, full of fraud and overcharging. Maybe a combo of the two. I'll leave this to you as I don't see the point.

3)"Maybe you could explain to my how Ron Paul states that the cost of health insurance goes up because of inflation when in fact health care costs go up at twice the rate of inflation."

Ron Paul indicated this was part of the cost and that inflation is exacerbated in those parts of the economy where government controls the marketplace. You are grossly misrepresnting the content of Dr. Paul's views. The video in this thread clearly shows Dr. Ron Paul (a medical doctor familiar with the system) does not see normal macro-economic inflation as the primary driver of expense -- he sees artificial government induced inflation as the reason. Watch it please.

4)"To claim the healthcare industry isn’t in the business of creating profits for the investors goes against the very principles of the capitalistic system you support."

I agree. Good thing I've never claimed this.

5)"Maybe you could explain to me why CIGNA is returning profits at 7% when the economy is in the dumps."

It would be fun to do a business case study of Cigna -- a company that engages in much more than health insurance in the U.S. As you can tell given your job, it's hard to figure all this stuff out and I can't do a simple web search and answer your question. I can tell you that Cigna profits declined 53% the first quarter this year.

http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssHealthcareNews/idUSN3038524520081030

I can also tell you, working for an insurer (not health insurance, but similar from a regulatory perspective) that the government requires cash reserves be held in excess of claims paid for all private insurers to ensure solvency of the system. This is the same law as banks have and a pretty smart one. Regardless, I would want them to have a profit motive as this creates incentive in a free market system to find efficiencies and innovate products that reduce costs. As I stated before, profit is what allows washing machines, light bulbs, laundry detergent, cookies and all manner of goods and services to be cheap for Americans relative to others. But, oops, that's right, the government prohibits product innovation and dicourages process efficiencies -- thus, we don't have the environment for a free market system in U.S. health insurance. The govenrment standardized the product as a managed-care health maintenance program such that insurers have near monopolies - and we're surprised when prices go up like a monopoly's would?? Again, when did this happen? Oh yes, as the articles outlined in the other thread (and Dr. Paul indicates in his video) -- this happened when government picked sides on which practices would be incented and which would be discouraged -- thus dooming the traditional insurance system and creating the very sick system we have today.

Is it a coincidence the rise of government sponsored managed care corresponds directly with astronomical price inflation?

(I've asked this question at least 5 different ways and won't stop asking it -- sorry)