Linkmeister

Yes, Linky..
I read an article in Newsweek (?)that said GM and DC and other car manufacturers are moving to Canada because the insurance preminums on American employees are getting too high...it is a sad state we are in.
Bush apparently has indicated that something will/must be done. The last paragraph stated that it was like President Bush is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic while the iceburg is looming closer and closer.....

as someone who has paid $200 in copays for x-rays and a band-aid for the litle one's elbow after a fall, I agree totally that this is out of hand. But I will risk losing my car, my house and everything I own to get needed medical care for me and my family. Isn't it sad we have to take that risk and think about whether we can afford it?

Man. So far (knock wood) Scott and I have been in good health. And, so far, what doctor visits we've had have been covered by insurance (mostly).

I'm just speechless (well, not really) and appalled. Soon there will be insurance offices in ERs so you'll have to get approval *before* you bleed to death, fall to the floor, or slip into a coma.

Sheesh.

Kevin Drum has had an interesting set of posts to his blog about National Health Care in France. Some, of course, rely on anecdotes to make generalizations, but in others the analysis and commentary are spot on.

In my opinion, society has to make choices about how much to spend on caring for the sick and elderly and others in need. Whether by government program, charitible giving, employer-paid benefits, or out of one's own pocket, one can look at the summation of all of these to approximate how much the society is willing to pay.

What disappoints me is that the US pays more than other countries to achieve less than superior results.

Is the problem third-parties' profit (insurance companies, drug firms, etc.)? In a macro sense, I say no, for their profits end up being recycled into the overall economy, thereby providing jobs and incomes.

Rather, I think the issue is bureaucracy. There are just too many intermediaries, both government and private, that take their piece of the pie before actual benefits are delivered. A rational society would streamline the process, and divert the surplus gained into either higher levels of service, or into other worthy causes. Dislocations caused by such a massive change would be absorbed over time.

Joseph Shumpter had it right when he proclaimed that capitalism is essentially a process of creative destruction, and one where resources applied most efficiently lift all boats.

I came to the conclusion a year or two ago that a single payer system is best, and belive only a national government can and should provide it.