>You are referring to socialized healthcare which this country is working towards in a slow manner.

I agree with the word slow.

And I think the word "socialized" has too many connotations. It's the preferred term in some public discourses here, because it resembles "socialist" and sounds almost derogatory. I'd prefer a more neutral term, if one is still available. Something based on the idea of commons.

>I disagree with that personally. Healthcare at others expense leads to unecessary care that clogs doctor's offices, hospitals and the health system in general.

And healthcare at one's own expense leads to almost-absent prevention. People go see the doctor only when they are really sick, in case they can't afford to do that when they just feel some symptoms. Ask any doctor how many diseases are a piece of cake if discovered early.

Also, a lack of an overall system leaves the science without any global statistics. I yet have to find a study which uses general data accumulated over the last decade(s) for all people. Typically, you find studies based on a few hundred cases, or a few thousand at best. But then, as the numbers grow, there's incongruity in the data, because the methods for their gathering was standard... local standard, that is. The more, the merrier.

Another thing that a lack of overall system produces is that for each thing a new program is started - meaning that there has to be some personnel engaged to run that program, some to write the mission statement and engagement rules, some to oversee it, some to control its finances, and let's not forget those who need to lobby for those finances in the first place, and then to lobby again when the program is threatened and its funding about to be slashed. These all cost, and none of them cover all people in all of the country. You can't rely on anything being 100% sure to be available in your area.

I don't think the unified health system has to be state-owned or even state-run. It can be organized in any suitable manner, and may even be a loose federation of independent offices, but it should be available to all, unified (as in "standard set of procedures, standard coding") and non-profit. BTW, while googling out this issue, I found out that until the mid-nineties, most of the health programs were non-profit, at least the insurers. Now the for-profit hold about 75% of the market (I love it when my health is a commodity) and the costs have soared.

> I read recently that a patient in Canada must wait 24 days for an appointment with a cardiologist and an additional 15 days for the same type of emergency surgery that Bill Clinton received. When my ex-husband had heart-bypass surgery they detected the problem and operated within 4 days. In Sweden, supposedly they have to wait up to 11 months for heart x-rays and 8 months for essential surgery. I don't know if these numbers are factual or not, I read them in an article while I was waiting to see the doctor with my daughter just two days ago. She had an ear and sinus infection and then caught Strep throat on top of it all.

I've just recently seen, on local news, that a lady had to undergo a second surgery within a week, so they'd remove a surgical shroud (about one square foot or so) they forgot in her abdomen. And I remember that about 90000 people die from medical errors annually in this country.

So, citing examples can prove anything and can't prove a thing. I have no doubt that the numbers quoted were right for a number of cases, but I have serious doubts about them being typical, or applicable to a longer periods of time.

> We were in and out of the doctor's office in a short period of time with a prescription that I got
>filled within the hour.

Pretty much the treatment we had in the children's clinic back home. With three daughters, you can imagine we visited the place a number of times. Yes, we had to wait, sometimes as much as two hours, but they got proper treatment each time (all the doctors in the house were specialized pediatrists), and they had an in-house pharmacy just down the hall. The medications for kids were free, for adults you had to co-pay an equivalent of about $0.20 or so (not by the then rate, but by comparison - a price of a ride on a city bus was about three times more) per prescription, regardless of what was on prescribed. And sometimes you were better off paying the actual price, because there was no such thing as drug market, and they were sold by their real cost price (plus a margin of below 5%), and some of them were actually very cheap to make. You could get aspirins without prescription for $0.10 (same calculation) a box.

> When my appendix burst I stopped by the doctor's office in the morning and had surgery within 3 hours. I cannot complain about the general nature of our healthcare system now, only that there is a lot of bureacracy with some insurance carriers and not all employers offer affordable health insurance.

Mine offers a wide choice: I can shop around and pay for whatever I like, they won't interfere.

>All systems (capitalist and socialist) of healthcare have problems, but this country was founded on the principle of less government not more and as it is our government spends too much money on too much junk and all of it without consulting the tax payer. I want to see less taxes, less government, and less spending as it is. With the amount of taxes we pay now we should be receiving free healthcare (instead of our dollars going to other countries)

In form of ammunition and military hardware? :). I think the amounts of foreign aid and military spending differ by a few orders of magnitude.

> but I don't think socialist healthcare is the answer.

If you're a representative of the majority's opinion here, than it can't work here. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I know it worked in our case, until Milosevic and his junta stole the money. We had regular vaccinations (free), regular tuberculosis tests (free), systematic checks for kids (each year, checking growth, eyesight, etc... and keeping everything on record), additional checking for anyone in a hazardous line of work (I, as a professor, had to go microbiological checkup every two years - because I was in contact with high-school kids; for waiters, cooks, butchers et al it was annual, for medical personnel, twice a year).

What it took off everyone's salary was about 17% of the net pay, plus 17% for retirement fund. The "net pay" was whatever you had after taxes and a few other things, which means they didn't total more than 20% of your gross salary.

> I would prefer to see that money in my pocket and let me continue to pay for my health insurance and choose my doctors.

It's the same, it's just that money isn't in your pocket. When you're doing fine, you're paying for others; when you get it bad, the others are paying for you - and the total cost of your care is not your concern. You know you will be taken care of. It's a principle of solidarity and common good we're talking about, not politics.

>You won't like this but I really feel that there are plenty of countries out there whose government provides socialist healthcare and whose government in general leans towards socialism and those that want a socialist system should choose those countries over the U.S. If you want the government to take care of you then another government is the answer, not changing
>ours to a socialist system.

Again, not political: I can see how a system like this would be feasible here, without any involvement from the government or politics, by simply joining forces and uniting the existent myriad of islands that health care is here into something providing care for all. But then Wallstreet would say it's communism, denigrate it in all the media, and basically kill the idea from the outset. So it's best to stay healthy and out of debt... or... well, the possible outcomes scare me sh*tless.

>We need to go back to our roots and get out of big government. This is not a welfare state nor should it become one. Those services have certainly become available to all and so people have come to expect them, but that is not the same thing as a 'right' to them. I will never believe in taking from the rich and giving it to the poor. It only leads to the poor staying poor and staying reliant on the government.

OTOH, under this system, the poor will stay sick and poor, and in debt.

And the health system isn't about taking from the rich and giving to the poor - it's just insurance. And the cost of care shouldn't depend on how rich is the patient... last time I checked, they both had the same set of organs, and bled when cut just the same. Basic health should be available to all. Again, if you wanted a large TV and singing nurses, you could pay extra. But you'd get the same antibiotics at the same price.