You talk about “Death Bureaucracies” within the NHS in the United Kingdom. Just for the record, we aren’t even heading in that direction. On the other hand, we have the “Death Bureaucracies” at insurance companies for those who are self-insured or are seeking to buy health insurance. First, they go through your medical history, which BTW is available to them in databases (so much for privacy) and find ways to find exemptions so they don’t have to cover you for those illnesses. Second, if you do get sick, they will do their level best to find reasons not to cover you. If they do cover your illness, they will then raise their premiums to an amount as to make it unaffordable. Examples of all these scenarios abound.

Also, according to a Harvard Study, 45000 lose their lives due to lack of health care insurance or because of under-insurance. Here’s the link to that story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090917/hl_nm/us_usa_healthcare_deaths

Lets not also not forget that over 60% of all personal bankruptcies in this country are related to health care costs. About 40% of those folks who fall in this category, had some form of health care insurance.

Pretty sad for a country that calls itself the “Greatest Nation on Earth”. If we judged ourselves by how we treat the weakest or most disadvantaged members of our society, we wouldn’t even come close to being “Great”. My opinion.

We aren’t going to be following the UK’s National Health System model. Nor are we going to be following the Canadian model. The other two countries you cite, Belgium and the Netherlands interestingly, also have universal health care. Another country next door to these two, France for example, has government subsidized health insurance with health care providers (doctors and hospitals) run by the private sector. The French are considered to have one of the best health insurance system in the world. And here’s the kicker, they spend $3600 per person for all of this (health care insurance and the associated care). We, in the United States, spend a little over $7200 per person on what we have. That’s TWICE the amount.

I liken this scenario to something like walking into a store to buy a suit. I get quoted a price of $720, for a suit that isn’t really that good. I go across the street into another store and see a pretty good suit, certainly better than the first one, and the price quoted in $360. Half the cost for a better suit! And we have some politicians and and the insurance industry as a whole, telling us that the $720 suit is a better deal! If that isn’t stupid, I don’t know what is.

BTW, we rank 37 in health care. The French are rated consistently in the top 3 in health care. Also, according to the Kaiser Institute, health care costs for those with employer provided health care will rise to over $30,000 in 10-15 years. That, even according to the most cynical people in the industry, is simply not sustainable.

Illegals do not enter through a single entrance. I do not advocate suicide.

I merely suggest that we, as a people, would experience better health status and health outcomes if we took the responsibility to create and maintain healthier living environments free of toxic air and water and much less stress — these are the things that make us sick and kill us.

As a Roman Catholic, I know it’s a sin to kill yourself, but if others choose to kill themselves, there are plenty of ways to accomplish the goal without assistance. The older the person is, the quicker they’ll die if they simply don’t eat or drink. Don’t go to a doctor. Dont take any medicine for that heart condition or that diabetes. Killing yourself is not only easy, but cheap.

As for the problem of illegals bringing contagious diseases into our country, the solution is not to enforce economic hardship on the productive members of society; you close the border. Congress voted to extend the fence, but as soon as Democrats gained majority control, they refused to fund it. The issue is so serious that I’d take it further and electrify the fence. Fences don’t call in sick, fall asleep on the job, or require vacations and other benefits. Border security checkpoints would not only stop the invasion of illegals, but also stop 90% of the cocaine and heroin that enters our country and destroys families and lives. It would also help in ensuring terrorists aren’t entering. A truy secure electrified fence would kill three birds with one stone and pay for itself in less than 3 years.

Viola.

Now, my own 90 year old mother has received about $750,000.00 in Medicare and Medicaid paid medical services in the last 5 years at the finest hospitals in this area; with no more than $500.00 out of pocket. Never did anyone hesitate to provide care because of her age, or even ask me about advanced directives. So, I am a TRUE supporter of Medicare and Medicaid for everyone.

My personal views:
1) Public health coverage is a must because many people known the “working poor” may not qualify for public assistance. Further, this public plan should include illegals since more than 1/3 of the planet’s population is infected with incurable TB — would want one of them coughing on you?

2) More attention must be placed on prevention. If the causes of disease are eliminated the cost of treatment decreases.

3) Focus should be shifted away from individual behavior/lifestyle towards environmental contamination. Chemical production, distribution and consumption (especially coal) probably accounts for more than 70% of our chronic disease burden, including congenital anomalies. So, if we are not continuously poisoning ourselves we might have better health.

4) Public funding should be introduced, allocated and delivered for new forms of “treatment”, so that these treatments are publicly owned and publicly available. These include stem cell research, organ and tissue regeneration, artificial viruses as cellular catalysts and conduits, and nano-biotics.

5) Human conditions should not be transformed into treatable conditions for profit.

So, if the issue is about costs, then there are ways to reduce the costs of treatments by eliminating or reducing the need for treatments by eliminating the environmental poisons we consume, introducing new forms of treatment that provide an “all at once” cure and by NOT having disease viewed as a for profit commodity.

You misunderstand the nature of the issue at hand. It has nothing to do with advanced directives or living wills and everything to do with denying routine and customary care to individuals because of the expense. It’s about denying 65 year-old vigorous men their choice of timely and expensive but highly effective treatments for prostate cancer. It’s about denying independent and strong 70 year-old women timely and expensive radiation therapy and combination chemotherapy to manage breast cancer.

And as far as deciding that folks who require machinery to breathe for them are useless — I think Christopher Reeve never received your memo.