Kitteric,
Socialized medicine does work in some countries. The happiest people on the globe was recently reported living in Denmark where socialized medicine was integral in their pursuit of serenity. Not all governments are defunct as you portray ours to be, although I am inclined to agree that our government is running on fumes!!

Ms. Genuine, I beg to differ with you. Nowhere in the world does socialized healthcare work as well as American free market healthcare.

I would like to ask you to do some homework about Denmark's economic situation before touting their healthcare system. There is an employment crisis in Denmark right now. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find qualified candidates for jobs in Denmark because the taxes required to fund the welfare state are making living for productive working people financially impossible. A Value added tax of 25% is levied on the sale of most goods and services (including groceries). *The income tax in Denmark ranges from 9%-44% for ultra-low to low-income families to 44%-63% progressively for middle class families. That problem is compounded by the growing number of people that have few or no viable job skills because they don't have to work. Fully 60 percent of Denmark's population depends on the government for their living. By the way, how does one quantify happiness? It seems a rather nebulous property (as do all human emotions).

Also, the government that you want to provide us all with healthcare is the same one that you were complaining about making people jump through hoops to get a serious condition recognized and treated.

Think twice, is this really what you want?

*information taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_...

Kind Sir,
I am not touting Denmark's economic situation, only that they were rated the most happiest people on the globe. Surely, if they were so dissatisfied with their healthcare and economic woes they would rank somewhere near America on the scale of happiness? Further, the Veteran's Administration employs the same tactics as Canada and other socialized countries buying medicine from the US Markets that you are so bitterly complaining about. If the VA could not buy at a fixed priced from the pharmaceutical companies, I am afraid that our Veterans would go further underserved in their healthcare needs. I am confident that you must be aware of the existing blight facing our Veterans in an effort to receiving prompt healthcare. Increasing the cost of the drugs used to treat these soldiers would surely raise taxes and further reduce available services. You wouldn't want to increases taxes for that purpose would you? As a final comment, I find it obscene that anyone treating the ill or infirmed would find making a PROFIT of providing treatment or at the expense to the helplessly sick citizens by refusing unprofitable treatments IMMORAL. Nowhere in the hippocratic oath does a Doctor take a vow to make a profit! The whole health industry's intention on making a profit for shareholders off the terminal ill or otherwise suffering of humanity is absolutely the most offensive practice cultivated in American society!

Who sponsored this survey to determine the level of happiness? The Danish Tourism board? The Danish Social Services Commission? The Danish Society of Professional Clowns?

But seriuosly, Nancy what is immoral about profitting financially for doing a very difficult job that often requires numerous hours of weekly work often to the detriment of the family structure? One that requires perfection from the one doing the job and often results in severe sanction through litigation regardless of the level of human error. It is a market economy, and in my opinion that is what drives the competition and forces creativity and growth. This growth puts money into the hands of everybody whether profiting directly or as a member of the structure that supports it.

When did profit become a dirty word? Ms. Genuine, are you saying that the people that perform the most important work in our society, should do that work for free? FYI, the majority of pharmaceutical company profits are put back into research and development of new and better treatments and cures.

Let's take your "perfect world" view as hypothetic reality. Doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and medical treatment companies no longer make profits. Where do new drugs, medical treatments and procedures come from? The companies have spent all of their money on overhead (payroll, building maintenance, utilities, etc.)

Do you think of all profits as immoral? For a company to make profits they must provide a needed good or service. The market sets the price for the good or service by their amount of demand. As a liberitarian this should all be plain as day. I am also confused by your stand on socialized medicine. Liberitarians as little as possible government involvement in our lives. Your views seem to slant decidedly socialist/fascist.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your positions. Please help me understand how you consider yourself to be a liberitarian.

I have already had this discussion with Sam Adams. I am not affliated with any political party or agenda. I only use the term libertarian as an avenue to profess my allegiance to the protection of "personal liberties" and only in that sense. I am not encumbered with any political party's definition in terms of issues or agendas. In answer to you query regarding "profits" I must clarify that providing goods and services does entail creating profits to clearly induce the growth of a capitalistic market. What I am stating is that the capitalistic market is not a solution for all of humanity's needs. This is clearly evident with the multitudinal examples that I have commented on in the last few weeks in this forum, in addition to the opinion columns I wrote for the Courier in the past. As far as my tendency to understand the "socialist" mind, I do. But I would not go so far as to say that I am a socialist either. What I am saying is that there exists in humanity a need to blend the two theories to meet all of humanity's needs. Obviously, I am inclined to have a position that stands in complete contradiction to anything that has been envisioned before seems elusive to you. I am trying to think "out of the box" to find solutions that actually may work; yet, many people are still trying to find a "box" to put me in. I refuse to accept a label. I am a free-thinker and in doing so I must admit it is a process. However, I do in fact think that a healthcare industry based on economic forces and profitable bottom lines is inherently immoral in my opinion. To price healthcare out of the reach of the majority of Americans who can neither afford to purchase the services out right or purchase an insurance policy to assist in the cost is a huge red flag to members in our society that the industry is defunct in meeting the needs of our citizens. I do believe that healthcare as exemplified in the European markets in delivering services to all is not a perfect utopia... but atleast it is available without bankrupting the ER Trauma centers that are forced to serve those uninsured patients who have no alternatives at an increased taxpayer burden as occurs everyday in America. My point is this: if our trauma centers and ER Rooms are treating patients who can not pay because it is inhumane not to, incurring a loss to the shareholders, with the price tag being picked up by the taxpayer anyway why not choose an alternative treatment venue to lower the cost and still provide service regardless if it does not meet the profitability ratio???

Maybe I'm wrong, but most indigent treatment comes through an agreement under Hills-Burton which provides that the hospital agrees to treat in exchange for government assistance and tax breaks in the purchase of equipment. Outside of that, you can bet that they are still being billed with the expectation that they will recover what is due them. What alternative would you suggest?

If that is so; why are our ER and Trauma facilities screaming for money to continue operating at normal capacity? I am constantly barraged with articles that state indigent treatment is absorbing huge losses and siphoning taxpayer dollars to keep such facilities afloat!I challenge you to find one that is operating at a profit without "assistance!" What I am suggesting is that the exorbitant fees charged to treat such uninsured patients not necessarily in need of ER services but have no viable alternatives to health care be provided lower-cost or subsidized health care options using those same taxpayer dollars being wasted clogging up our Emergency rooms. The current waiting time in an ER right now is averaging 6 hours nationally. Do you think that is the reasonable solution for addressing a real emergency? Further, why do we use valuable "government assistance"(ie. taxpayer dollars) in such a extragant way when we could find alternative solutions using the same dollar which could treat many more patients at a lower cost and free up our ER rooms?

This'll be a short response. I won't have much computer time this week or next. Here's a better suggestion, how about we only require emergency rooms to treat EMERGENCIES!!!!! If an indigent patient has a non life threatening condition the ERs should be allowed to turn them away. Isn't this just common sense?

I will have to agree that non emergencies should be screened and referred to an alternative healthcare provider. The problem is this: when an uninsured patient with an inability to self pay for medical services is in need of healthcare only the ER rooms are obligated to treat them!! This, Kind Sir, is the PROBLEM and a disgusting waste of resources. A single mother with no insurance and a minimum wage job can hardly afford health care at out of pocket costs anywhere in our society!! When her baby screams at 2:00 in the morning from an intolerably painful ear infection it is reasonable that she would feel that is an "Emergency." However... is it? and if it is not, where is she to go to relieve her child's suffering? If she took off from work to go to a local low cost clinic requiring long hours of waiting if an appointment is available at all may be in jeopardy of losing her only employment opportunity to keep the rent paid. All I am suggesting is that when it comes to the health care crisis in America it is never simple to just state one solution will work in all cases. A multi-facted solution approach is what we desperately need to formulate and implement nationwide to provide health care for all our citizenry, keeping costs low and services available to address human suffering promptly.