Elizabeth Warren (D) "It’s time for Democrats to run on single-payer health care

[Shadows]

No other wealthy nation even has this debate.

Plenty of other wealthy countries don't have single payer health care.

Only Canada and the UK do, if I'm correct.

Japan, Norway, Finland, New Zealand, Italy, Portugal, Sweden, Finland, Spain, most Gulf countries. Some people call Portugal a multi-payer which is disputed because SNS is free, universal, national, etc. Even the countries which have Multi-payer or Mandates like Germany etc have 80-85-90% of the system as Single Payer within the Multi-payer/Mandate system. Multi-payer potentially could be a better option but ACA was the multi-payer/Insurance Mandate type option & it failed.

It is impossible to implement unless both parties are ideologically similar - So that they don't play around with coverage or income levels. Plus, in US multi-payer/Mandate type universal healthcare is impossible considering the courts will find an income level & forced insurance like Germany unconstitutional !

Finland has a public option. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Finland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare. Canada and Taiwan are the only ones with single-payers. Others have multi-payer. A 2001 article in the public health journal Health Affairs studied fifty years of American public opinion of various health care plans and concluded that, while there appears to be general support of a "national health care plan," poll respondents "remain satisfied with their current medical arrangements, do not trust the federal government to do what is right, and do not favor a single-payer type of national health plan."[106

Finland is 100% a Single payer. Everyone has a public, government provided National Health Insurance (NHI). The private insurance is barely 2-3-4% odd & it is mostly dentistry, physiotherapy etc.

This is why people need to read & understand Healthcare rather then reading half as*ed Wikipedia articles. More than a third of universal healthcare countries including many European countries are Single Payer. 2001 is irrelevant & is 15 years back. As a matter of fact, people didn't even support Medicare & Medicaid initially. When Truman won the election running on Single Payer, the AMA turned it Communist, government take-over & many groups mobilized people & politicians & defeated him. LBJ had to play the poor & old card continously to get Medicare & Medicaid passed after the AMA had initially opposed it.

Public option has chanced. There are dozens of studies posted multiple times that shows anywhere between 55 to 60% or more of the people support Universal Healthcare/ Medicare-for-all/ Single Payer !

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Elizabeth Warren is now a Socialist by Admission. What a terrible woman.

[NOVA Green]

It's about time Warren came on board, and although I'm not her biggest fan, it certainly seems like the major Democratic 2020 contenders are increasingly moving towards  the only solution that will both reduce consumer costs, while at the same time expanding coverage, as a result of the leverage that the US Government will be able to exert upon the Privatized Medical Sector that has squeezed massive profits  out of the pockets of working and middle-class Americans and created the most expensive medical sector in the industrialized world, where only the wealthiest can afford quality of service.

Sorry---- America is a great country, but I fail to see how the massive profits margins in the Medical Sector have worked out for the vast majority of US Citizens when it comes to coverage and quality.

The most amazing thing is that "Obamacare"/ACA was essentially the Republican proposal from the early 1990s, and now is being universally opposed by Republicans, and there are still a ton of Democrats that see it as the "Centrist" option.

Not changing my avatar anytime soon, until we have a real candidate who actually represents the interests of working-class Americans when it comes to affordable and quality health-care delivery.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Elizabeth Warren is now a Socialist by Admission. What a terrible woman.

I heard she supports free K-12, too. Talk about crazy socialism.

[Shadows]

And people approve of it ! All those socialists in the polls !

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Healthcare profits margins are low (https://www.verywell.com/health-insurance-companies-unreasonable-profits-1738941)
and most people like their plan and don't want taxes to go up (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/4/14/11421744/bernie-sanders-tax-revolution).

[RINO Tom]

If they do this, goodbye Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina.

Some would ask, "And if they don't, what's the point of the party?"  I think single payer is a bad idea, but it amazes me how some red avatars here are so content with picking up "states X, Y and Z" even if it means getting the types of voters who won't elect representatives who actually want to do the things you're party says it stands for?

Meh. At this point all I care about is wiping those smirks off those smug Republican faces.

With people who vote like the Republicans you hate so much but agree to kiss Nancy Pelosi's ass when it comes time for the Speaker vote?  LOL, doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[Mr. Morden]

Anyone want to predict which 2020 Dem. candidates will explicitly support single payer, and which will have a position more like "let's do Obamacare + public option, and maybe we can think about single payer years from now"?

[Beet]

Anyone want to predict which 2020 Dem. candidates will explicitly support single payer, and which will have a position more like "let's do Obamacare + public option, and maybe we can think about single payer years from now"?

Besides Sanders and Warren, have any come out for single payer?

[Mr. Morden]

Anyone want to predict which 2020 Dem. candidates will explicitly support single payer, and which will have a position more like "let's do Obamacare + public option, and maybe we can think about single payer years from now"?

Besides Sanders and Warren, have any come out for single payer?

Gillibrand said in her recent New York Magazine profile that she backs Medicare for all....and in fact even way back when she was running for her House seat in 2006 she said she wanted to allow anyone to "buy in" to Medicare.  And Jeff Merkley (who is headed to Iowa in September, and just this week refused to rule out a presidential run) is also pro-"Medicare for all".

[Strudelcutie4427]

I'm a pre-med student right now and were single payer to pass my career would be over before it starts. Liberals have to realize that healthcare is somebody's labor and you are never entitled to somebody else's labor (slavery) doctors and nurses are overworked as it is and healthcare is 16% of the economy. All those jobs in the insurance industry would be destroyed and people will be out of work (probably what democrats want). I understand some people can't afford it, but why should they be entitled to care on the backs of people who already busy their asses taking care of their own families. Despite the feel good high school musical "were all in this together" mentality of most liberals, sorry we're really not. I have my own family and friends to worry about and I'm sorry, but I'm not concerned for someone who isn't a part of my life.

[Coraxion]

If they do this, goodbye Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina.

Some would ask, "And if they don't, what's the point of the party?"  I think single payer is a bad idea, but it amazes me how some red avatars here are so content with picking up "states X, Y and Z" even if it means getting the types of voters who won't elect representatives who actually want to do the things you're party says it stands for?

Meh. At this point all I care about is wiping those smirks off those smug Republican faces.

people who vote like the Republicans you hate so much but agree to kiss Nancy Pelosi's ass when it comes time for the Speaker vote

Those people don't exist. In these polarized times, the most conservative Democrats are a bit to the left of the most liberal Republicans.

[7,052,770]

I'm a pre-med student right now and were single payer to pass my career would be over before it starts. Liberals have to realize that healthcare is somebody's labor and you are never entitled to somebody else's labor (slavery) doctors and nurses are overworked as it is and healthcare is 16% of the economy. All those jobs in the insurance industry would be destroyed and people will be out of work (probably what democrats want). I understand some people can't afford it, but why should they be entitled to care on the backs of people who already busy their asses taking care of their own families. Despite the feel good high school musical "were all in this together" mentality of most liberals, sorry we're really not. I have my own family and friends to worry about and I'm sorry, but I'm not concerned for someone who isn't a part of my life.

Your "career will be over" if we move to a watered down Canadian style system? Dramatic much? Are you under the impression that there aren't any doctors in Canada?

[Mr. Morden]

Anyone want to predict which 2020 Dem. candidates will explicitly support single payer, and which will have a position more like "let's do Obamacare + public option, and maybe we can think about single payer years from now"?

Besides Sanders and Warren, have any come out for single payer?

Gillibrand said in her recent New York Magazine profile that she backs Medicare for all....and in fact even way back when she was running for her House seat in 2006 she said she wanted to allow anyone to "buy in" to Medicare.  And Jeff Merkley (who is headed to Iowa in September, and just this week refused to rule out a presidential run) is also pro-"Medicare for all".

Followup on the above: After Gillibrand said she was for Medicare for all at the Capitol steps sit in, Gillibrand senior advisor says yes, she's for single payer:

https://twitter.com/ericbradner/status/880558419723395073

[SWE]

Liberals have to realize that healthcare is somebody's labor and you are never entitled to somebody else's labor (slavery) doctors and nurses are overworked as it is and healthcare is 16% of the economy.

What are your thoughts on the constitutional right to an attorney?

[Hammy]

I'm a pre-med student right now and were single payer to pass my career would be over before it starts. Liberals have to realize that healthcare is somebody's labor and you are never entitled to somebody else's labor (slavery) doctors and nurses are overworked as it is and healthcare is 16% of the economy. All those jobs in the insurance industry would be destroyed and people will be out of work (probably what democrats want). I understand some people can't afford it, but why should they be entitled to care on the backs of people who already busy their asses taking care of their own families. Despite the feel good high school musical "were all in this together" mentality of most liberals, sorry we're really not. I have my own family and friends to worry about and I'm sorry, but I'm not concerned for someone who isn't a part of my life.

Your basic logic here is flawed as you're acting like free healthcare = unpaid doctors. What it would mean is that those who can't afford it will have access to it, and that the costs (absurd charges well beyond value by large medical corporations/pharmaceuticals) would be controlled similarly to how utilities are.

And if you're going to make the argument that it's not your problem, let me ask you this--should people who oppose wars have to pay for them? Should people with "their own problems" as you put it have to pay for people who voluntarily join the military and sustain injuries? Or should they have to pay for the politicians pay if they oppose them and didn't vote for them? Unless you answered no to all of these then the entire foundation of your argument is contradictory and utterly hypocritical.

[Phony Moderate]

If they do this, goodbye Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina.

Well they lost all three of those in 2012 while still winning handily...

[Strudelcutie4427]

I'm a pre-med student right now and were single payer to pass my career would be over before it starts. Liberals have to realize that healthcare is somebody's labor and you are never entitled to somebody else's labor (slavery) doctors and nurses are overworked as it is and healthcare is 16% of the economy. All those jobs in the insurance industry would be destroyed and people will be out of work (probably what democrats want). I understand some people can't afford it, but why should they be entitled to care on the backs of people who already busy their asses taking care of their own families. Despite the feel good high school musical "were all in this together" mentality of most liberals, sorry we're really not. I have my own family and friends to worry about and I'm sorry, but I'm not concerned for someone who isn't a part of my life.

Your "career will be over" if we move to a watered down Canadian style system? Dramatic much? Are you under the impression that there aren't any doctors in Canada?

The big issue i have is I want to be a doctor who works with individual patients. I do not want the government running my work place, and effectively making me a government worker. If i wanted to do that i would'nt be busting my ass for pre-med and med school in the fall. We already have a single payer type system here. The VA. The VA is an absolute disaster which shows exactly what government run healthcare does to people. Veterans died on the waiting lists, and nobody is held accountable. Our system right now int perfect but we dont have the ridiculous waits that people in other countries have, which is why we have a big medical tourism industry in America. I for instance have been diagnosed with skin cancer twice and i was able to get it treated on the spot with no wait. In other countries, who knows, it couldve eveolved into melanoma before the bureaucracy got around to it. People from Canada, Asia, and Europe come here for procedures that they would otherwise need to wait in some cases several years for. Additionally, if you put the government in charge of the medical system, they will be able to step in and make decisions for the doctors and the patients, not allowing them to make their own. See the recent story of the 10 month old baby in England whose parents raised over a million dollars to bring him to the United States for a potentially life saving expirimental treatment. The NHS stepped in and refused on the grounds that it would cause the child to suffer, and they are pulling life support either today or tomorrow. For the government to not allow parents to make one desperate attempt to come to the US and save their child's life is disgusting.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I'm a pre-med student right now and were single payer to pass my career would be over before it starts. Liberals have to realize that healthcare is somebody's labor and you are never entitled to somebody else's labor (slavery) doctors and nurses are overworked as it is and healthcare is 16% of the economy. All those jobs in the insurance industry would be destroyed and people will be out of work (probably what democrats want). I understand some people can't afford it, but why should they be entitled to care on the backs of people who already busy their asses taking care of their own families. Despite the feel good high school musical "were all in this together" mentality of most liberals, sorry we're really not. I have my own family and friends to worry about and I'm sorry, but I'm not concerned for someone who isn't a part of my life.

Your "career will be over" if we move to a watered down Canadian style system? Dramatic much? Are you under the impression that there aren't any doctors in Canada?

The big issue i have is I want to be a doctor who works with individual patients. I do not want the government running my work place, and effectively making me a government worker. If i wanted to do that i would'nt be busting my ass for pre-med and med school in the fall. We already have a single payer type system here. The VA. The VA is an absolute disaster which shows exactly what government run healthcare does to people. Veterans died on the waiting lists, and nobody is held accountable. Our system right now int perfect but we dont have the ridiculous waits that people in other countries have, which is why we have a big medical tourism industry in America. I for instance have been diagnosed with skin cancer twice and i was able to get it treated on the spot with no wait. In other countries, who knows, it couldve eveolved into melanoma before the bureaucracy got around to it. People from Canada, Asia, and Europe come here for procedures that they would otherwise need to wait in some cases several years for. Additionally, if you put the government in charge of the medical system, they will be able to step in and make decisions for the doctors and the patients, not allowing them to make their own. See the recent story of the 10 month old baby in England whose parents raised over a million dollars to bring him to the United States for a potentially life saving expirimental treatment. The NHS stepped in and refused on the grounds that it would cause the child to suffer, and they are pulling life support either today or tomorrow. For the government to not allow parents to make one desperate attempt to come to the US and save their child's life is disgusting.

We also have Medicare, you know.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

I'm a pre-med student right now and were single payer to pass my career would be over before it starts. Liberals have to realize that healthcare is somebody's labor and you are never entitled to somebody else's labor (slavery) doctors and nurses are overworked as it is and healthcare is 16% of the economy. All those jobs in the insurance industry would be destroyed and people will be out of work (probably what democrats want). I understand some people can't afford it, but why should they be entitled to care on the backs of people who already busy their asses taking care of their own families. Despite the feel good high school musical "were all in this together" mentality of most liberals, sorry we're really not. I have my own family and friends to worry about and I'm sorry, but I'm not concerned for someone who isn't a part of my life.

Your "career will be over" if we move to a watered down Canadian style system? Dramatic much? Are you under the impression that there aren't any doctors in Canada?

The big issue i have is I want to be a doctor who works with individual patients. I do not want the government running my work place, and effectively making me a government worker. If i wanted to do that i would'nt be busting my ass for pre-med and med school in the fall. We already have a single payer type system here. The VA. The VA is an absolute disaster which shows exactly what government run healthcare does to people. Veterans died on the waiting lists, and nobody is held accountable. Our system right now int perfect but we dont have the ridiculous waits that people in other countries have, which is why we have a big medical tourism industry in America. I for instance have been diagnosed with skin cancer twice and i was able to get it treated on the spot with no wait. In other countries, who knows, it couldve eveolved into melanoma before the bureaucracy got around to it. People from Canada, Asia, and Europe come here for procedures that they would otherwise need to wait in some cases several years for. Additionally, if you put the government in charge of the medical system, they will be able to step in and make decisions for the doctors and the patients, not allowing them to make their own. See the recent story of the 10 month old baby in England whose parents raised over a million dollars to bring him to the United States for a potentially life saving expirimental treatment. The NHS stepped in and refused on the grounds that it would cause the child to suffer, and they are pulling life support either today or tomorrow. For the government to not allow parents to make one desperate attempt to come to the US and save their child's life is disgusting.

Today, your insurance company makes decisions for your doctor, because they're paying the bill.  Yes, you can override such a decision IF you have cash-in-pocket to pay, or you are able to go into debt.

You talk about a decision on a heart-wrenching case involving a terminally ill child, and it was wrong.  But my son, who has had a pectoral muscle ripped from his rib cage in a work accident (where he was screwed in the Worker's Comp process; trust me, that's the case) doesn't need a miracle; he just needs services that already exist.  He hasn't been able to work, and even if he had, he wouldn't have enough money to pay the sort of out-of-pocket costs to DETERMINE the problem, let alone solve it. 

Is "Healthcare" about "Doctors" and "Medical Careers"?  Or is it about maintaining and improving the health of individuals? 

Go to your local ER and see folks with no insurance come in with a broken bone.  They'll get a splint (not even a cast) and they'll be referred to a "specialist" for "follow up".  Of course, that specialist will want over $200 for a "consultation" including an x-ray, and these folks just don't have that.  So their broken bone heals however it's splinted; if it's not optimal, that's too bad.  What "choice" did these poor folks have?  Yes, they had the choice to not make the stupid decisions they made in the past, but would they have definitely avoided the situation they were in (as medical beggars) if they had done everything right? 

I would likely support Elizabeth Warren for President in 2020 if she were serious about Single Payer Health Care.  I would throw up afterward, but I'd support her if she was serious about this.

[gerritcole]

It's about time Warren came on board, and although I'm not her biggest fan, it certainly seems like the major Democratic 2020 contenders are increasingly moving towards  the only solution that will both reduce consumer costs, while at the same time expanding coverage, as a result of the leverage that the US Government will be able to exert upon the Privatized Medical Sector that has squeezed massive profits  out of the pockets of working and middle-class Americans and created the most expensive medical sector in the industrialized world, where only the wealthiest can afford quality of service.

Sorry---- America is a great country, but I fail to see how the massive profits margins in the Medical Sector have worked out for the vast majority of US Citizens when it comes to coverage and quality.

The most amazing thing is that "Obamacare"/ACA was essentially the Republican proposal from the early 1990s, and now is being universally opposed by Republicans, and there are still a ton of Democrats that see it as the "Centrist" option.

Not changing my avatar anytime soon, until we have a real candidate who actually represents the interests of working-class Americans when it comes to affordable and quality health-care delivery.

by massive profits in the medical sector are you referring to doctors/nurses, insurance companies, big pharma or all the above?

[gerritcole]

I'm a pre-med student right now and were single payer to pass my career would be over before it starts. Liberals have to realize that healthcare is somebody's labor and you are never entitled to somebody else's labor (slavery) doctors and nurses are overworked as it is and healthcare is 16% of the economy. All those jobs in the insurance industry would be destroyed and people will be out of work (probably what democrats want). I understand some people can't afford it, but why should they be entitled to care on the backs of people who already busy their asses taking care of their own families. Despite the feel good high school musical "were all in this together" mentality of most liberals, sorry we're really not. I have my own family and friends to worry about and I'm sorry, but I'm not concerned for someone who isn't a part of my life.

do you plan on leaving the medical field if this happens? i imagine paying back medical school/undergrad loans will be difficult if/when single payer leads to across the board cuts to medical salaries

[IceAgeComing]

Right I feel that a few things need cleared up here:

The big issue i have is I want to be a doctor who works with individual patients.

I'm assuming that you're talking about general practice here since that's the only way in which this as an idea makes any sense (if you're a specialist in a hospital then you're seeing whoever comes in for treatment in the area that you specialise in: no matter where you work.  In the UK General Practice Doctors work with individual patients: people are registered to local medical practices that are owned generally by the Doctors that work there on a non-profit basis.  The National Health Service provide funding to cover the wages of Doctors plus the costs of the treatments that they can do on-site (referrals to hospitals or prescriptions are covered by other sides of the Health Service); and that funding is contingent on them meeting certain conditions; the biggest one being that the care provided is free at the point of use and that they follow NHS practice.  These are generally the exact same restrictions that GPs in countries that have an insurance-based system have to follow: only that its easier for everyone since rather than every insurance company having their own sets of rules and restrictions about what they will and will not cover, you only have one set of rules in NHS practices (private healthcare exists but its irrelevant to this discussion.)

I do not want the government running my work place, and effectively making me a government worker. If i wanted to do that i would'nt be busting my ass for pre-med and med school in the fall.

There are plenty of professionals who work for the government already: why is working for the State automatically less worthy than being in the private sector?  Additionally Doctors in the UK are paid very good wages - my sister only qualified a few years ago and she's still a Junior Doctor and she's earning significantly above the average wage and in only a few years that will be a comfortable income probably in the six figure range.  Also because they are government employees they have a high quality pension scheme that is guaranteed by the state (while private sector companies have recently been raiding the pensions of their employees: in many cases resulting in there simply not being enough money to cover the costs meaning that old people suddenly have their main income taken away from them); strong representation from their Trade Union plus significant support from the public for what they do.  My sister has genuinely never thought about going private and she would bitterly oppose the imposition of a private system here even if she would financial benefit from it.

We already have a single payer type system here. The VA. The VA is an absolute disaster which shows exactly what government run healthcare does to people.

It shows the importance of properly investing in your health system rather than letting it wither and die in order to justify cuts to service levels or privatisation or both.  The same issues that the VA has were exactly the same issues that the NHS had in the late 90s after eighteen years of Tory misrule; significant underfunding led to a service that was almost on its knees.  Shockingly after the next government began funding it properly the quality of the service provided dramatically improved.

Our system right now int perfect but we dont have the ridiculous waits that people in other countries have, which is why we have a big medical tourism industry in America. I for instance have been diagnosed with skin cancer twice and i was able to get it treated on the spot with no wait. In other countries, who knows, it couldve eveolved into melanoma before the bureaucracy got around to it.

For procedures like that there generally is no waiting period if there is any risk that the condition may worsen - you would naturally skip the queue and be treated as an emergency in a case like that.  Waiting lists that exist are generally for things like organ donations - which is pure supply and demand and could be corrected by an opt-out organ donation policy rather than an opt-in one - and procedures which are not emergencies and which require specialised help that cannot immediately be provided.  Besides: someone in your condition who could not afford health insurance would have absolutely not chance at not developing melanoma while in the UK that is not a problem and from that perspective I think that it is clear that it is a significantly fairer system.

People from Canada, Asia, and Europe come here for procedures that they would otherwise need to wait in some cases several years for.

This is a heavily overblown story: the number of people that leave the UK for medical treatment for reasons of waiting lists are insignificant.  More leave because of a wish to try experimental procedures but in the US many of those wouldn't be covered by insurance companies so there is no difference - again: private healthcare exists in the UK.

Additionally, if you put the government in charge of the medical system, they will be able to step in and make decisions for the doctors and the patients, not allowing them to make their own. See the recent story of the 10 month old baby in England whose parents raised over a million dollars to bring him to the United States for a potentially life saving expirimental treatment. The NHS stepped in and refused on the grounds that it would cause the child to suffer, and they are pulling life support either today or tomorrow. For the government to not allow parents to make one desperate attempt to come to the US and save their child's life is disgusting.

But this is the most egregious part of your post; since it is wrong in almost any way.  Let me explain the case that you are talking about in detail.

Indeed; there have two cases like this in recent UK history; that of Charlie Gard about a year ago and Alfie Evans a month ago.  I'm going to look at both cases in detail.  The principal of both are the same: the idea is that the child has rights; that one of those rights is not to suffer un-due and unnecessary suffering if improvement to their condition is impossible and that those rights trump the rights of their parents.  It is also the case that the Doctors involved in the care of the person are the ones that judge on whether or not they can apply for a request to remove life support (not "the NHS"; not some faceless government official: those who've been looking after the patient for a significant amount of time and who know more about them than anyone) and a Judge; looking at all of the evidence; has the right to make the best decision for the patient based on their interests - not those of their parents or the NHS; their interests.

Charlie Gard suffered from a rare genetic disorder called mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS); which causes brain damage and muscle failure; has no known cure and in the vast, vast majority of cases causes death in infancy.  Dr Hirano (based in America) was researching a possible experimental procedure that might have been able to prove Charlie's condition.  The doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital were in contact with that Doctor while Charlie was on life support and said Doctor made the decision to not come to the UK to examine Charlie at that time although there was an agreement made between the hospital - an NHS hospital - and the Doctor to try the procedure out.  In January he suffered a series of seizures that caused significant brain damage and the Doctors at GOSH made the decision that the experimental procedure - that it had been agreed would be carried out in London without Charlie needing to travel - could not save Charlie and they applied for an order to remove life support.  This went through several months of legal wranglings and during that period Dr Hirano travelled to the UK to examine Charlie and came to the exact same conclusions as the Doctors at Great Ormond Street did: that the experimental procedure was fruitless and pointless to try after those seizures, and that the best thing for the interests of Charlie was for life support to be removed.  The decision was made on the basis of the best interests for wee Charlie by the Doctors that cared for him for a significant period of time as well as an independent arbiter who is only concerned about the interests of the child and nothing else.  Exactly the same processes exist in American hospitals as well: as I'm sure you are aware being a medical student there comes a point where keeping a person on life support without any prospects for improvement is only cruel for everyone involved and that was the case in this situation.  Not an easy situation for anyone but I agree with the decision made by the courts in this case - if only Dr Hirano had made the decision to travel to the UK earlier then perhaps this might have been avoided but no one can truly know.

The case of Alfie Evans is very similar although a lot weirder (him being given Italian citizenship was... a bit odd).  In that case there wasn't even a theoretical experimental cure: an Italian hospital offered to keep him on extended life support until some future date where theoretically something might be possible - since they hadn't diagnosed exactly what neurodegenerative disorder he had then there was no real prospect in a cure being found.  However they said that because of Alfie's condition plus the fact that he'd suffered several very bad seizures that there was a significant risk involved in him being transferred to Italy and that the risks involved may have caused further brain damage and made transfer very, very risky.  Additionally the doctors made the decision following a series of brain scans that demonstrated that the white matter in Alfie's brain was being progressively destroyed and that by their decision to apply for a court order very little remained; that the child was effectively brain dead.  This one seems clearer cut and it is based on the same situation as above: the Doctors made the decision to apply for a removal of life support on the interests of Alfie; since there was absolutely no prospect: no hope of any improvement and that keeping him on life support was incredibly cruel.

I'm from a family with a lot of people who work in the health service: my sister is a Doctor; one of my cousins is a Nurse and her husband is a surgeon and I have heard all sorts of stories about their work.  Once one of them had to make a decision on this .  And you know what; its a lot fairer than the US system when critically ill people can be thrown out onto the streets by hospitals if they cannot afford to pay for their treatment.  The NHS has problems - everyone knows this; and everyone accepts this.  However; in the UK pretty much everyone - doesn't matter if you are a Socialist like me; a Liberal; a Conservative; or whatever - agrees with the basic principle of the system: that no one should be barred from receiving medical treatment because of their inability to pay; that care should be available to everyone in the country on an equal basis.  A yougov poll in May last year found that 84% of people in the UK feel that healthcare should be run by the public sector - only behind the police (87%) and ahead of the armed forces (83%) and schools (81%).  Anything that has that level of mass public support even when its many issues are well known must be doing a lot of things right - and that support only rises when the American healthcare system and the significantly deeper problems that it has comes to the attention of the public again.

e: One last thing: in your earlier post you talk about not being concerned about people who aren't a part of your life.  That strikes me as being something that someone seeking to go into medicine probably shouldn't believe - after all; the whole point about being a doctor IS caring about people who aren't a part of your life in any meaningful sense.  I actually find it rather frightening that someone seeking to enter medicine would have such beliefs: they strike me as being incompatible with the hippocratic oath.

[Karpatsky]

I'm a pre-med student right now and were single payer to pass my career would be over before it starts. Liberals have to realize that healthcare is somebody's labor and you are never entitled to somebody else's labor (slavery) doctors and nurses are overworked as it is and healthcare is 16% of the economy.

That's ridiculous. Labor is just a form of value, and there are plenty of instances where labor is made an entitlement for citizens. The person above noted public defenders, but there's also firefighters and police, services at US embassies abroad, a lot of the federal bureaucracy, and so on.

The fact is, this is not equivalent to slavery and it is morally abhorrent to claim so. No one is forcing doctors at the barrel of a gun to cure people under such systems; instead, it is a condition of being a doctor in the first place. If you think changing your job description qualifies as slavery, I think you might not be cut out for employment of any kind.

[henster]

Yes, run on something you still don't have a way to pay for... At least a public option largely pays for itself and makes sense in the current scheme of things. M4A nobody really knows how big the tax increases would need to be to support it.