Sanjay,
I am not a big fan of the universal health care like Massachusetts tried to do. I think that it really costs the government WAY too much! And all of the people still aren’t covered. While I do think something needs to be done to help people with no insurance I just don’t see that this is the way!

I did watch your program last night on this subject and found it to be really enlightening. I really don’t want our health care to be anything like Canada’s. To me it just isn’t worth it!

If anything we need to get the prices of insurance WAY down. And the prices that the doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies charge need to be lowered also! That is what needs to be done in my opinion.

Cynthia, Covington, Ga.

We do not need to have insurance companies! This should be a requirement of the government to provide health care. We cannot continue to let people die because they can’t afford it. It doesn’t matter how cheap you make it! I can’t afford Breakfast and Lunch as it is, let alone afford to pay for insurance! STOP TALK ABOUT THE SAME THING! No bady is going to fix this and people are going to continue to suffer because our nation can’t come together a one!

Hi,
Living in Canada, where the government does pay for health care, I do not understand why noone would want this. I work for a company that does supply a health care plan, and there are different options to choose from. I only pay $22.00 a month with the plan I chose. For those who can not afford it, they are subsidized 100%. Also with my plan, it covers optomolagy, dentists, massages, and chiropractic care. Here’s what I don’t understand–why do Americans think that the government would have to spend too much money on health care for their “own people”, yet think it is just fine to finance a war, they will never win, for trillions of dollars?

I can’t imagine the huge drug companies would like a universal healthcare system. I have friends who are drug reps and it would definitely put a crimp in their style.

It seems like a lot of the focus in this campaign aside from the bickering on each other has been on health care. While some of the candidates have proposals for universal health coverage, no one is talking about the real problem, which is that having insurance in many cases is no good simply becauase the insurance will not cover people when they really need it. According to Gupta’s show last night, there was a million or so deaths that could have been prevented if they had been taken care off but the insurance companies chose to not help this people who were killed even with insurance. I don’t see anyone talking about holding the insurance companies accountable for their actions here. I find it very amusing that some of these candidates pretend to be pro life when they have excellent opportunities to do something to fix a system that is in international measures embarassing for a modern country like the US, but they select to not do anything about it.

I don’t even know why we are having this discussion! If anyone thinks that these big insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are going to roll over and allow this universal health care thing to happen then you have another thing coming! There is NO way these companies are going to let this happen and lose BIG money! NO WAY!!

This whole discussion…like I said before…is just to get votes from us. When whoever wins gets in office and this bill gets shot down, and it will, just like before, they will move on from it and everything will go on as it is now! For better or worse!

Cynthia, Covington, Ga.

Cynthia is right. It is just all talk and for votes.

It really doesn’t matter whether you think there should or should not be universal health care coverage…because it is not going to happen no matter who gets elected because (1) there is no money for that and there is already a huge deficit and (2) way too many vested interests to let that happen.

Whether you like Bush or not (which I don’t), you have to at least give him so credit for trying to tackle the social security issue. Not saying you have to agree with his plan, but at least he tried and put something out there. It’s easy to point out problems, the hard part is finding solutions.

Hey S!
The pharmaceutical companies have nothing to fear concerning investors citing lost revenue for R.&D. since prescriptions are the jurisdiction of private health care providers, i.e., Blue Cross, so too visits to the chiropractor, dentist & optometrist.
Those who can afford full premiums, based on annual income, pay accordingly; those who receive less, in annual income, have their premiums partially or wholly subsidized through the provincial government which is mandated by the Canadian Health Act & exclusively covers visits to primary care physicians, specialists & hospitalization.
The Canadian system is far from ideal but it has worked for the past forty years & any politician or pundit, provincial or federal, who has raised the issue of privatization has received an earful. Everyone, regardless of income, deserves access to quality health care & any misanthrope who disputes the notion has never been on the receiving end of misfortune.

@Cindy

I understand what you’re saying and agree the fight will be almost impossible, but what are we supposed to do? Ignoring the problem because there’s too much blocking a solution is not going to help things. We need to do everything we can to pressure our officials to actually work for us for a change and not the insurance companies that fill their coffers.

Dr. Gupta:

I am also not in favor of a universal health care system. This is not to say that I have no compassion. We have the best medical care in the world. This is not to say that we do not have some problems with the delivery system. We have to bring the costs down.

1) TORT REFORM— You know how much malpractice insurance that you pay.
2) DRUG COMPANIES— Making 1000-3000% profit ( THATS PROFIT ) on the most perscibed medications. It can not be all R & D costs as they tell us. Our government, universities and overseas facilities carry on a lot of their R & D.
3) INSURANCE COMPANIES— Charging more and giving less.
4) THE CONSUMER—- Has to become a better manager of their health care options.

Both R’s & D’s take money from the various healthcare lobby groups. If you take money, you will always owe something in return. These groups are not going away anytime soon.

Susan
Phoenixville,PA

@ Stacy,
That is the problem…trying to get our elected officials out of the pockets of these huge corporations. That in itself will be nearly impossible. Mostly because all of the bribing is done behind closed doors so we have no idea who is on their payroll.

The only way we can get anything done is to find out who these people are and get them out of office. And make sure that we elect people who won’t take bribes and only have the best interest of this country in mind. Then maybe we can get something done about our failing health care.

Cynthia, Covington, Ga.

Manditory insurance doesn’t work.

If you can’t afford it, you can’t afford it - even when you desperately want it.

Forcing everyone to carry it like car insurance is bad unless you are going to cover those of us who can’t afford another expense added to our bills.

Barack’s plan covers everyone and is not manditory.

I think we can see how forcing the individual to carry insurance will not work.

Groups get discounts and breaks that individuals can’t achieve, especially if you have a pre-existing condition.

Corporations like reducing their financial obligations to their employees because it increases their profit. That is why both bills were presented by Republicans…not for the social/moral reasons.

Covering everyone, the ounce of prevention, would have solved stops the expensive ER bills, the pound of cure.

Companies make a profit by providing goods or services.
In fact, it’s basically a requrement of publically held companies.

Health Insurance is a business that makes it profit by DENYING goods and services.
When you have a core flaw in the business model such as this, how do you fill this descrepancy? Goverment is the only solution I can see.
Goverment here is for the safety, security and benefit of its citizens, if it is not, why go through this or any political ordeal.

I live on the Canadian border now and not once have I heard of people being denied service or being turned away which I saw first hand when I lived in South Florida.
Sometimes you may not agree with your neighbor, but you still want to know why something is working for them and is there a way it could work for you?

Sanjay,
Great Topic!! when many say “it costs over too much” and other along this line, just makes me think of how TRUELY wealthy our government is, and how we spend SO MUCH MONEY on unneeded things that in fact harm the americans more the benefit them.
I think it’s a shame that a country like Australia, whos wealth and power is nowhere near the US can afford this universal health care for every single person in Australia, plus pay all those who are unemployed and those who have never even worked a day!! I mean our governement managed to put billions of dollars, and still puting, only in IRAQ, why cant it do something beneficial to its people by creating this health care?

In a nation who calls itself the greatest country on Earth, I find it shameful that the government doesn’t provide quality health care for ALL its legal citizens. Every time the subject is brought up people say it won’t work or point to long waits - both statements which the American Medical Association and the health insurance companies have pushed. These organizations will continue to push inaccurate information to the American public because they know that if passed their profits will take a nose dive.

Look at the Canadian responses on this topic - they are positive about the health care their government provides. Does that not signal to you that perhaps we need to revisit this option and do serious research into it before saying it won’t work? Its working for Canada; its working for France. In both countries, there is an 80% approval rating or better for their health care system. One leading indicator of how good a health system(the primary care portion of the heath care system) is - infant mortality - is lower than that of the United States. In fact, the U.S infant mortality is one of the highest of developed countries. Our infant morality rate compares more with developing countries. This should tell us that our health care system is not working.

Long waits? There are long waits at times for ELECTIVE procedures. ELECTIVE procedures are those which are at the patient’s discretion to have or not - they are not procedures that are needed to save one’s life from a accident or a terminal disease. Another scare tactic by the companies and organizations who will lose the big dollars if we put in a national health care system.

Before you make up your mind on universal health care examine the sources of the statements that are made against it; do your own research; and then put yourself in the shoes of people who have no health care insurance and who feel like they cannot go to the doctor unless they are near death. Its a frightening place to be in.

One last item and I’ll put my soapbox up - while I admire Dr. Gupta’s expertise in the medical field tremendously, I do not think he was a suitable choice to give a balanced report on this subject - he’s a doctor who has vested interest in the status quo. He may have bent over backwards to keep his report objective but the appearance lends itself to the perception of vested interest. It would have been better to pair him with a reporter whose other job is not in the medical industry. (Sorry Sanjay).

Our system is broken. We can band-aid it to death but it will still be broken. Like John Edwards said when he told the story of the man from Appalachia with the cleft palate who could not talk for the first 50 years of his life until a doctor out of Christian charity did the needed surgery, as a great nation we owe it to our citizens to ensure that everyone has good quality health care at an affordable cost. It is the logical and human thing to do.

Annie Kate
Birmingham AL

Dear Dr. Sanjay Gupta,

Most people confuse the single-payer Health coverage and the Universal health coverage with one another. Basically, in single-payer system, the government totally owns the health care funding system and in the Universal health care system, a choice can be made between several Insurance companies.

Hospitals and Health care facilities in a poor working class neighborhoods are able to survive their costly maintanance through the single payer system. The disadvantage is that the single-payer health care system is federally implemented but can put a burdensome pressure on the State. THat’s why governor Schwarzenegger never endorsed it in his State of California and neither did Romney in Massachusetts.

The Universal health care system seems a better option for the United States, since it allows the competing Insurance market economy to develop and little will be spended through federal and state funding.

Another fact is that Universalized Medicare and Medicaid has a variable effect from state to state, because of the difference in economic development, job availability, population median income level etc. The size of several age groups, such as children, elderly and population with a below poverty level norm plays a big role too.

Dear Dr. Gupta,
Thank you for your efforts to increase the awareness about our healthcare system, its’ attributes, and numerous flaws. As you pointed out in your coverage of Broken Government: Healthcare, the system needs an overhaul, and it is not an easy solution, but requires a multi-level approach. This approach must also emphasize disease prevention, health promotion, and treatment.

I was truly aghast to see the man with cancer having to marry, just so he can have insurance. What has become of this great nation of ours? Given the prevalence of chronic diseases and co-morbidities among our young and old, Universal health care is long overdue! The kind that covers every US citizen, even if that means mandates.

As long as our health is subjected to a bunch of business people making money we will always get the short end of the stick. The health care of our country should be managed by our government. This way we would at least have our vote to give us some say in the matter. The republicans say that big government is not the way to go that free enterprise is the way but I say we the people are the government and we could tailor a plan that gets rid of the blood sucking insurance companies. We could take the money thats paid to these companies and have the best health care in the world. But of course the rich republicans would not want their sheep to do this.

Dr. Gupta

On a scientific level, do you have sufficient evidence to draw a conclusion based upon a sample of 2? You seem to be leading people to the conclusion that since the proposal of Universal Healthcare was voted down by committee (not by representative vote) or that because an expanded healthcare program in one state has led to budget deficits that nationwide Universal Healthcare is unattainable. If I were to infer that budget overruns lead to disasterous results, then our yearly Iraq budget would certaily mean that the US financial system will collapse.

You must analyze each case in isolation but in relation to the current system of healthcare dispensation in the US. Ours is a for-profit system in each of the four aspects of healthcare: services, manpower, equipment, and pharmaceutical. Providing healthcare to every individual in the US will not shrink costs at the clinical or hospital level… it will increase those costs because of higher utilization. It will not decrease the costs of services that support healthcare facilities but will increase those because of higher utilization. It will not decrease the cost of equipment… those should stay relatively stable if you allow for the continued growth in prices. It will not lead to a decrease in pharmaceutical prices. Those may rise due to higher utilization and shrinking inventories.

So how do consumer prices for healthcare decrease? By placing pricing caps on services, manpower, equipment, and pharmaceuticals that supply the healthcare industry. That will require manditory oversight by the federal and state governments. Executive compensation, supply chain, manufacturing, staffing, medical school admissions… an entire range of issues that control costs to the consumer will have to be brought under control.

An effective universal health program will ultimately lead to a reduction or cap on physician wages (which is why doctors are opposed to this concept), tigher regulation on the number of physicians licensed in primarily elective medical fields (plastic surgery) and a greater allotment of physicians in high-demand areas such as obstetrical, geriatric, and rural area general practice.

Drug companies oppose this concept because caps will need to be placed on executive compensation. There is no way that innovation or production will be compromised because higher utilization of healthcare means higher market opportunities for industries that service healthcare.

The story of universal healthcare is currently being dictated by those who profit most by supplying the least. It means higher taxes because those who take advantage of low wages and/or low benefits to secure employment in the US should have to pay their part for the people they exploited in order for them to profit in the first place. It means each one of us may pay a little more but those costs are offset by the fact that we would no longer pay a monthly healthcare premium or per visit or per purchase co-pay. It means we will need to build more clinics and hospitals, hire more services, hire more staff, buy more equipment… these things create jobs, grow the economy, and raise everyone’s standard of living.

As long as only the healthy or wealthy dictate our access to universal healthcare, then we will be the ones who continue to pay a higher percentage of our net worth for healthcare and we will be the ones who lose our homes when we need that surgery because we could not or would not afford those yearly screening tests that would have caught our condition in the first place.

Dr. Gupta. It is not necessarily correct to say “because two attempts have failed, they all will fail.” This is a moral issue. You should perhaps try asking, “how can this system be put into place?”

Robert

DR.SANJAY GUPTA

I watched your program on the heahth issue that was educational. Health care should be a requirement of the government with a complete restricted rule of law becuase of not being abuse. The expenese should be added to tax law or somewhere in government income budget not to be burden to individua.If this happens there will be job creation and not out sourcing employment.

I like to mention another thing that is medicare for retired people.That covers most of medical bills except dental & part of eye expenses which the old people need the most. I think if the health care program take a place we may have the same problem but in different catagory.No matter what happen we have to have the best health care program in the world because we think we are the best in the world.

HM

I agree that we should have government health care for everyone. We need to become a complete Marxist state as soon as possible. People are stupid. They are not able to make decisions for themselves. Therefore, we should take more of the income and re-distribute it as politicians see fit and tell them how to live their lives. Whenever the government tries to solve a problem, it always does a better job, at a lower cost, than the free market. Freedom is vastly overrated. We need to teach citizens how to enjoy living like sheep.

What many people want is free health care. Which means they want somebody else to pay it for them. According to the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, in 2005 the top 5% of taxpayers paid 60% of Federal Personal Income Tax, The Top 10% paid 70%, The bottom 50% of taxpayers paid only 3%. Gee how hard would it be to get the bottom 50% to agree that other people should pay their way.
Recently we had an increase in the minimum wage. Perhaps this increase and any other increases should have been sent to the government and used to pay for a health care plan for those who do not receive a company paid plan. After the year when they file their taxes if the individual satisfied the required premium amount for health insurance they could get the rest back as a refund. This is called personal responsibility.

As an American, I agree that health care should be available to everyone.
As a healthcare professional, I fear our current system cannot bear the burden of a nation in need of care.

Health insurance is not the only part of the system that is in need of fixing.
We have shortages in many areas of the system. Personnel is spread extremely thin, from nurses to respiratory therapists to medical lab technologists.

Why is this not an issue, yet?

Linda
Port Charlotte,FL