National Healthcare

What do you think are the pros and cons of national healthcare?

Do you think it would cause the governemnt to impose further restrictions on things like smoking and fast food?

Do you think they would impose higher taxes and would this be fair to people to pay the same amount as people who smoke or engage in other nonhealthy behaviors?

Do you think that socioeconomic status would determine who would get what as far as say a private room or the way they ration supplies and such......

Free isn't really free is it? Would they make cuts to other things and what would those things be? Education? Defense?

You don't have to answer all my questions, I am just throwing them out there as things to ponder. I am interested to hear your opinions.

I really don't think it will work out too well. First and foremost, it's going to coast way too much money. Obama's health advisers state that the program is targeted towards younger citizens-people who are more likely to be able to afford health insurance on their own in contrast to many of the elderly. It's a pleasant -albeit dysfunctional- idea because the fact is that we are already paying for the health care of people without insurance. Those people end up in emergency rooms and without insurance the bills are outrageous and guess who pays for that? If there was a system in which health insurance was provided for exclusively people who couldn't afford it I would support that because at least we'd be paying on our own terms. However if we made a minute cut to defense I would feel differently. We spend WAY too much money on defense-(something like 54%?) and I understand that America has many threats, but if we simply tried to maintain a neutrality whenever possible we wouldn't have to go storming into places looking to change the world.

Check out the model for England's NHS...it seems to work for everyone.

"Those people end up in emergency rooms and without insurance the bills are outrageous and guess who pays for that? "

^ As a nurse I see many repeat patients returning to the emergency room instead seeing a primary doctor and getting preventative healthcare, they wait and come on our dime...I suggest sanctions for those on federal backed insurances that repeatedly come in with no doctors and abuse the ambulance service to the hospital and the treatmants received there.

What do you think are the pros and cons of national healthcare?
What cons? What are you talking about? National healthcare is the bomb.

Do you think it would cause the governemnt to impose further restrictions on things like smoking and fast food?
No. Why should it? I mean I'm basing this opinion on an analysis of how other countries function with NHC..
What restrictions can you initiate related to fast food?? And America is already ridiculous about the drinking age. Smoking isn't about to be made illegal. Not in this century.

Do you think they would impose higher taxes and would this be fair to people to pay the same amount as people who smoke or engage in other nonhealthy behaviors?
Instead of higher taxes, we should be taxed realistically.. for things that make sense. Like national healthcare.
Of course it's fair to tax everyone equally for equal healthcare. Equally as in a certain percent of a family's income.. you know what I mean? I don't like these insinuations of discrimination.. alcohol is as toxic as cigarettes, let's not get on the topic of what's healthy/what's not.

Do you think that socioeconomic status would determine who would get what as far as say a private room or the way they ration supplies and such......
Nope.

Free isn't really free is it? Would they make cuts to other things and what would those things be? Education? Defense?
No, it wouldn't be free.. but it would be cheaper. And someone poor not covered by healthcare could get hit by a car - ribs broken - and not be turned back towards the street upon entering a hospital. How insane is that! You know my insurance wanted to stop covering me because I was taking anti depressants?? C'moooonnnn
Cuts would probably need to be made. On what I'm not sure. Something ridiculous that we're being taxed on obviously.

You don't have to answer all my questions, I am just throwing them out there as things to ponder. I am interested to hear your opinions.
Sure you are.

"And someone poor not covered by healthcare could get hit by a car - ribs broken - and not be turned back towards the street upon entering a hospital."

Fortunately this isn't the way it works. That person will get basic treatment, but, unfortunately, it will come out of taxpayers dollars. -Because of this, I think some form of National Health care should be created, but it's an extremely delicate situation.

"How insane is that! You know my insurance wanted to stop covering me because I was taking anti depressants?? C'moooonnnn"

That's horrible. However, I think this will bring to mind a bitter-sweet victory to come. Since the program will be free-it won't have to worry about competition- henceforth there won't be much of an incentive to perform at high standards. On the other hand, I'm willing to bet that insurance companies like yours will start greatly improving the quality of their care in order to keep customers.

Have you seen Sicko.. Michael Moore film? I know the guy is outrageous, but his documentaries are worth seeing.

^What cons? What are you talking about? National healthcare is the bomb.^

Competition is the bomb because it fosters innovation. There are big bucks to be made for companies that come up with the next miracle drug or some breakthrough biotech product. There are reasons that biotechnology and pharmaceuticals are two of the fastest growing industries in the US.

Why would compaines want to invest money into something that would reap little or no profit? The government would end up putting a damper on potential because they would expect this new breakthrough to be shared with other companies.......it would cause some companies to leave the industry for sure. The competition we have now has caused our GDP to surpass that of other developed companies who currently have national healthcare.

So I guess when someone says National healthcare is the bomb it would depend on which country's model you are referring to and what ramifications it has on their economy and citizens.

Would you like to wait a month to see a specialist or almost 2 years to have an MRI? That is how long some residents of Canada have to wait according to statistics. Factors such as these and certain services not being covered at all would cause people to obtain private insurance.And what about those who can't afford to do that? That would negate the whole purpose of having a national healthcare system.

Then there is the fact that our government has proven that it can not be trusted to be in charge of social programs due to their mismanagement of any surplus funds.....so what do you think they would do with a surplus should they generate one with a national healthcare program? Ride it down the road to bankruptcy like they are doing with Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare? All of our social welfare programs are abused by politicians and citizens alike Hmmmm.........things to ponder.

^No. Why should it?^
Because they are unhealthy and contribute to health problems.

^What restrictions can you initiate related to fast food?? ^

Well if you are the Cleveland Clinic you can kick Mc Donalds out of your food court when their contract is up......
you could tell a person that their triglycerides are sky high and that it was diet related and refuse coverage if lifestyle changes weren't made. Obesity contributes to people developing heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes............oh I could go on and on.

^And America is already ridiculous about the drinking age. Smoking isn't about to be made illegal. Not in this century.^

I didn't say anything about the drinking age or smoking to be illegal.

How about they check your CO2 levels to see if you have been smoking and deny you coverage because you are sure to get COPD, lung cancer or some other costly disease?

It may be discrimination but is is allowed to happen. There are many businesses here that do check now before they hire you. If you smoke, no job.......they don't want to end up paying for the potential problems you are leading yourself to have.
Private insurance companies now raise the premiums of smokers.......

why do they discriminate? Well, it boils down to the bottom line. In the end they will have to pay alot more money for the care of someone who engages in any type of unhealthy behaviors whether that be smoking, doing drugs or overeating and becoming obese.

^Of course it's fair to tax everyone equally for equal healthcare. Equally as in a certain percent of a family's income.. you know what I mean? I don't like these insinuations of discrimination.. alcohol is as toxic as cigarettes, let's not get on the topic of what's healthy/what's not.^

So you think it is fair for someone who leads a healthy lifestyle to pay the same as someone who for example is a cocaine addict and their abuse of drugs is causing them to have heart problems? Do you know how much it costs to see a cardiologist and to receive cardiac services??

I am not insinuating, there is and will continue to be discrimination. I will talk about what is healthy and what is not because it is relevant to the topic. What is healthy and what isn't is one of the causes for this discrimination you are upset about.

Do you think insurance companies or the government wants to pay more money for someone's medical bills because they choose to drink and they get liver failure?

Would we want to give that person a liver transplant if they needed it so they could poison that one with alcohol too?

Would we say it's okay to intubate you every couple weeks beacause you can't breathe due to the COPD you knew you might get from smoking 3 packs of cigarettes a day for 40 years....or that lung cancer..And even though you knew these risks and chose to continue, it is okay to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on you, you may end up living a few more weeks, even though you won't have much quality of life sitting around struggling to breathe all day ,even taking off your oxygen we pay for just to take another puff. Maybe you never saw the surgeon general's warning on one of the thousands of packs you've consumed in your life.

Do you think that socioeconomic status would determine who would get what as far as say a private room or the way they ration supplies and such......
^Nope.^

So you think if the president of the United States came to the hospital I work at that we would throw him in a semi private room as opposed to a private one? That may depend on what nurse he gets and if she agrees with the national healthcare. We might give the private room to the alcoholic who is going through DTs or the heroin addict instead. After all, if they have the same insurance, who cares. And if I had a cot and a big comfy bed, I'd give it to a crack head instead of the firefighter, after all the firefighter probably has a comfy bed at home and they both have the same insurance.

^No, it wouldn't be free.. but it would be cheaper. And someone poor not covered by healthcare could get hit by a car - ribs broken - and not be turned back towards the street upon entering a hospital. How insane is that! You know my insurance wanted to stop covering me because I was taking anti depressants?? C'moooonnnn^

I don't know where you live but here in the US, we have community hospitals. They are not allowed to refuse anyone care even if you don't have insurance and you come to the ER with an ear infection (which by the way is not an emergency.)! The other hospitals which are for profit can turn you away for your ear infection but not in any emergency situation because you have to be taken to the nearest hospital and they can not just say sorry, you can die since you don't have insurance.

So I guess I would say that what you just said does sound pretty insane to me. I would like to know where that happens so I can make a note to never go there!

I live in the UK and the very notion of having to pay anything other than standard working taxes for healthcare is a totally ridiculous notion to me. We still have private medical care available for those who can afford it and want lower waiting times etc, but everyone deserves the right to good health support, even if they make bad choices about staying healthy.

I think it says alot about a society when it can't care for it's most needy properly.

And for anyone who thinks private health care creates a more competitive and inventive medical market, you're dead wrong. Britain has total free health care in hospitals and local Doctors and we are still one of the leading countries when it comes to medical advances, always have been.

I hope people in America can look back in 20-30 years and laugh at the silly idea of paying for medical treatment.

Would you like to wait a month to see a specialist or almost 2 years to have an MRI? That is how long some residents of Canada have to wait according to statistics.

There are some waiting times, but I don't know anyone who has waited as long as 2 years to have an MRI, sometimes depending on the severity of the case, it can take a month or 2.

I have to agree with Kevin, I can't imagine having to pay for basic healthcare and I still always have the option of going to a private practice if necessary, which it never has been.

So I guess I would say that what you just said does sound pretty insane to me. I would like to know where that happens so I can make a note to never go there!

^^^ Welcome to California!
Apparently if you're taking anti depressants, you're suicidal.. And apparently if you're suicidal, you don't care about your life.. And apparently if you don't care about your life, you don't deserve health insurance! Yay!
Healthcare is a joke. I think it is.

I was just trying to stir this debate up a bit with my answers. I don't know enough about national healthcare benefits and negatives to have such firm opinions. You seem to know a lot more than me.
But I could argue with a few points you've made. I actually don't think that the President should receive better healthcare than anyone else... I think my middle class dad should be treated the same as Obama.
Also, have you considered that maybe there would be less unhealthy people if there was NHC in the US? My friend's mom is a meth addict and she doesn't have insurance. She got hooked at a very young age.. you could say before she knew any better. I think if she were to go through detox and receive professional help.. therapy or what not, she would get better. But no one wants to help her. Why would they when there's no money involved?

And after reading my post: Please everyone scroll up and read Kevin's. Again.

You are right nobody no matter their socioeconomic class or job title should receive better health care than anyone else. My response wasn't meant to imply I would discriminate but I know other people would.

I do think every person in the world should be entitled to healthcare.

I think it is a shame your insurance company are a bunch of idiots. Anti depressants are suppose to prevent you from being so depressed that you would harm yourself. It is preventative. They really don't care about people, it all boils down to the bottom line!

If everyone had healthcare then so many things would be caught earlier due to preventative care.

I agree with Bob too though that why should I pay $400 per month now for medical insurance when there are able bodied people at home sitting on their asses while I am busting mine and their healthcare is free? I would rather wait an hour or two longer at the doctor's office and keep my $400.

Nice way to stir the debate guys, we haven't had a good one for a while. Keep those opinions coming! I may email them to Obama LOL!

What? I'm lost.

SO now NHC equals a society of pathetic, helpless, dependent people?
Wow. I never looked at the UK like so.. but now that you mention it..
I'm still lost.

It doesn't matter what is in place, people find a way to take advantage of everything.

We have national health care and believe me not everyone is quitting their job to sit on welfare just because we have free health coverage lol You make more working part time than you do sitting on gov't assistance.

The welfare problem is a separate issue.

"Point is..I'd make more money and probably be technically happier without the stress of a daily job, getting up, driving to work, hating what I do, and then coming home to start cleaning and doing household crap. If I could make the same amount sitting on my butt, why wouldn't I?"

not everyone has crappy jobs they hate that dont pay much and not everyone is lazy.

Some of the most crappy jobs are government issued and if the truth was known the V.A. has most likely killed more veterans than any enemy they were forced to fight.

I agree with britt's reasoning...

There are many who abuse the system because they feel that somehow their dream job will arrive to their lap... which isn't a mature thing to do...

You live by your own merits, rather than accept what is given to you... Isn't that the true definition of freedom?

Frankly the idea of universal healthcare is sound but if we look at U.K's model, you'd see that its worse in getting the surgery you need... I already have to pay for something I hardly use, and frankly I use BUPA which much more efficient...

No, I think John happened to point out exactly what you said Bob.. that Britt was making generalizations based on herself.
That's it. How did your post add anything?
I don't see how John's remark was personal either. Do you know if he's successful? He didn't say that. One should not make assumptions about other people's lives.
Britt's post was personal. She explicitly mentioned her job and what she would do if the US had NHC. Does that mean her post added absolutely nothing? I disagree.

Anyway Britt, I think you should quit your job and do something you like.
Obviously easier said than done.. but where there's a will, there's a way. I'd like to see you enjoying your job! That's what I'd like to see. What would you like to be doing?

Amanda, I may just move to Canada one of these days!

^^Lol.. why are you explaining John's post?

He has the capacity to do it himself... Don't add the fuel to the fire...

Another thing I'd add is that universal healthcare could comprimise patient confidentiality...

Noir, that is a great point! And the insurance companies would be able to look up a detailed all inclusive health history on you and deny private coverage you were seeking because of it.

Michael, great point! One of my patients was telling me last night that he finally came to us because the VA has been having him take Motrin and be miserable with his bad knee. He needs knee surgery and he is 54 years old. A artificial knee lasts about 20 years so they told him he was too young to have it done. I was trying to figure out their rationale for this considering the average life span for him is about 72.

Miss Take, thank you for the comment about smokers and I admire that even though you are a smoker that you understood my point.

Http://www.cochrannation.com/
A friend of mine worked as a goverment employee
and has had to fight for every medical benifit she has recieved. I watched her continue to work as her health was failing. The human resource agent carefully did everything in her power to make sure she was terminated so they could terminate her insurance. The Johnny Cochran Law firm is going to take on the federal government on her behalf. I hope everyone involved get what is comming to them

If you choose to pay money to smoke and you know it is bad for you then you should also pay more for insurance since you are going to cost them more money with the problems you are going to cause yourself. Some people may understand this and others may think it is not fair but it is true. Everything always boils down to the bottomline. I wonder what medical knowledge the insurance companies have and I wonder if they even care.

I wonder how the government plans on deciding to pay for certain tests. I hope they would have to pay if the doctor deemed it necessary and without people having to wait an unreasonable amount of time. There are many aspects to this national or universal healthcare that have to be considered. Everyone deserves competent and equal care.

Rikki - People brought into the hospital aren't first come first serve or good people first bad people last. You are seen based on the need. If you come to the hospital with a gunshot wound you might die waiting, whether or not something you did caused it would be irrelevant. We don't like people to die, no matter how stupid they are or what they have done. Everyone is entitled to the same healthcare in that respect. ALso the Emergency Rooms are for Emergencies. They aren't there to take the place of having a primary physician. One of the reasons my insurance company for example makes you pay a $75 copay for the ER but if you are admitted to the hospital, it is waived. To go see your doctor like you should for an ear infection or a toothache, you pay a $15 copay.

So you would let someone sit there and bleed to death because he was in a shootout so you could get seen first for what? Just because you are a law abiding citizen and you shouldn't have to wait? That sounds absolutely ridiculous. How would you even know all the circumstances when you have a person bleeding to death brought in by the ambulance. Should I stand there and question him extensively first while he is bleeding so I can punish him for a crime I thought he committed? Pfffffffft!

Miss Take,

You're a smoker. I'm a smoker. I'm a drinker too. I don't think I should be treated any differently because I partake in unhealthy activities. Most people do. What about those with high cholesterol? Those who don't sleep enough? Those who never exercise? Those who run "too" much and destroy the cartilage in their knees? Living involves health damaging activities .. activities that lead to the necessity of medicine or hospital attendance.
And really, as Bob pointed out, if you look at the number of people in the US that smoke.. and look at the number of people who consume alcohol.. well, you get where I'm going.

Rikki, although I feel for your contempt and passion.. I think you're way off mark. It's too complicated and judgmental to line people up in their law abiding respects, paying no heed to the seriousness of injuries. If my sister was drunk driving home one night and crashed into a tree, then was taken to the hospital with blood gushing out of her ears.. I'd be pretty pissed off if someone who broke their finger skateboarding was seen first. You know what I mean?
Sure, my sister was driving drunk, which is a pretty idiotic, not to mention an illegal thing to do.. but she's my sister and she's about to die. I'm not going to side with anyone who thinks she deserves to be put second to a broken finger.

I think there should be universal pet health insurance. there are too many puppies and kittens out there without proper coverage.

Some of what I say is sarcastic and from the point of view I think the insurance companies look at it. I smoke too which is probably more stupid of me than any of you since I am a nurse and I see 1st hand all the time what it does to people. You would think that would scare me into not doing it. It is a stress reliever for me though I know it is very bad for me. I have to pay $30 a pay extra to my stupid insurance company since I smoke and that is discrimination. Do they charge someone extra cause they eat fast food every day and have high cholesterol and high triglycerides and are giving themselves high blood pressure and heart disease? What about the noncompliant diabetics?
What about the veteran I mentioned if his motrin didn't work and they kept telling him he was too young for surgery...what if he got addicted to pain killers or street drugs? Noone leads a perfectly healthy life, I don't think. You may live near a factory and breathe in harmful fumes.......is that suppose to be your fault?

Everyone has their vices. The way I look at it is if you are going to die anyways you might as well be happy and do what you want while you're alive as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (like smoking around other people, especially kids). Every person no matter your habits, age, gender, race, existing conditions.deserve the same equal healthcare. The government should let us decide how they spend our tax dollars.

You guys all are making great points, except John but he's funny so I won't say his statement added nothing to the topic....John, you could start a seperate thread for animals :)

Why yes Bob when they figure out it can make them more money they will. Shhhhhh..... I will have to give up the hairspray, I can't afford all these extras!!!

^I hate being forced to pay for something I don't agree with and some of my tax dollars went to these idiots using abortion as a means of birth control.^

I think many many people will agree with that statement Bob. And if it was free the rate would soar......

The bottom line is just as GI Jane pointed out, everyone indulges in some type of unhealthy behavior and everyone who does isn''t charged extra.

Rikki,

I would give that blame to the medical providers for not recognizing the signs and symptoms of internal injuries.

What if you were unknowingly drugged at a party and the effects didn't hit you till your way home and you crashed your car. Should I assume you are a drug addict and it is your fault so I'll just let you wait....there are so many scenarios and again in an emergency situation all the facts aren't known and if they were they are irrelevant anyways we would try to save your life no matter who you are or what you have done!!

We don't even want to know too much info about our patients unless it is relevant to their health history or care because we are suppose to be nonbias. Hard to do if you had a child molestor to take care of don't you think? We aren't suppose to have bias against anyone because everyone is entitled to equal care.
You aren't going to come to the ER and be asked have you ever been convicted of a crime or something the health professional doesn't agree with that is legal like drinking or smoking? Okay go to the back of the line! What you are suggesting would cause many deaths and lawsuits and is just morally wrong anyways that isn't how things work.

I don't even understand why you bring this up anyways Rikki, are you trying to say the wait is longer because of national healthcare?

""If a person is brought into ER, the staff examining them will soon know it they are drunk or under the influence of drugs. Then they should be passed by."

Ritalin is a drug. It is classified (FDA) in the same group of hazardous addictive drugs as cocaine, methadone and barbiturates. Its function is to dull and limit mental activity and capacity. It does to school children what other psychiatric drugs do to mental patients, enabling them to be warehoused with the least inconvenience to the staff. And this drugging is often done without informing the children or their parents of the potential side effects, that include sudden outbursts of violence

"What do you think are the pros and cons of national healthcare?

Do you think it would cause the governemnt to impose further restrictions on things like smoking and fast food?"

You can cut education and defence, but you had best leave Ronald McDonald alone

A disease is any unhealthy condition of mind or body
now that the goverment is involved refusing treatment to the poor could be viewed as genocide

After the war, Hayes accumulated a record of some fifty arrests for drunkenness.[3] Referring to his alcoholism, he once said: "I was sick. I guess I was about to crack up thinking about all my good buddies. They were better men than me and they're not coming back

I don't think National healthcare would cover abortions.

Rikki, people are prescribed drugs by physicians too. If you have chronic back pain you can be on countless pain killers some very powerful. Noone should be passed by.

Waiting 20 hours for a broken hip is a bit ridiculous, did they give her pain killers while she was waiting?
What if she went home after surgery and was geeked out on pain killers when she comes back should I pass her by cause I can tell she's on drugs? What you are saying makes no sense!

Thanks Michael!

I didn't know welfare covered abortion. We don't do them where I work so I don't know much about that. I would think those cheap SOBs would only want to cover things that were medically necessary.

As far as Ritalin and other drugs for ADD and ADHD, you can take virtually any child to a doctor and get oneof those diagnosis and the drugs to go along with it! It is a sad shame.

I took my son once and didn't tell them I was a nurse. They said he had ADHD and tried to give me some prescriptions 2 of them were for schizophrenia and can make you get the mouth tremors among other side effects that can stay even if you discontinue the medicine. One could cause diabetes and high blood pressure. I asked about the side effects and was told oh, that is nothing to worry about they are mild if any at all. I started questioning and the doctor asked me if I worked in the medical field. I said yes, I am an RN and then he started telling the truth. Needless to say I left and will never be back there again. My son might be hyper, but I think he is just a normal kid full of energy. They don't even know the long term effects of those drugs, the idiots and they just give them out without a second thought!

I imagine those kind of prescriptions would be on the rise with a national healthcare plan as well. Boy, they have a lot of work to do to make something like that work!

Rikki: Its rather ignorant to classify a psychiatric disorder as a lazy way of controlling active kids...

If you checked the history of the disorder you'd see that it was actually classified more than 200 years back... It has nothing to do with food or running or playing around... If it were that simple, it wouldn't be introduced under DSM III and subsequent DSM IV

This is true and happens in the US too. Well, they don't threaten to take the children but they do reccomend you take them to get tested. I once asked a teacher if they were a psychiatrist and what qualifications they had to diagnose such.

The medications are risky, there are no studies as to the long term effects of many of these drugs.

Rikki is also right about the additives in food. They can also cause a number of other things. Red dye, chocolate = migraines sugar = hyperactivity

The docs like to pass out this diagnosis and prescriptions way too easily.

And they get free pens.

Hey! The nurses like the pens.

I think some of the docs just like playing God. I amgoing to ask them this weekend what they think of National Healthcare and I will tell you what they say.

"Noir, I don't care if ADD was discovered a 1,000 years ago and was classed as a medical illness, in 90% of the diagnoses cases it is pure laziness."

Rikki I don't understand your logic... Because if it was a thousand years ago, there wouldn't be such a thing called junk food...Neither did junk food exist 200 years past.

I can agree that sometimes doctors arrive to a diagnosis by actually observing one or two symptoms. But again, I can't verify case by case. Than again you can't properly conclude this behavioural problem through conventional means..

I think ADD and ADHD is a valid psychiatric disorder. What you've described cannot be applied 200 years ago, now can it.

It isn't something that can be learnt or passed through one person or another...It is genetic

I think you actually need to learn from differing perspectives, rather than look at one or two case studies and formulate an idea based on it...

I will ask then that too Rikki. I only work the weekends so I will give you the answers sometime then.

Rikki... I understand what you're trying to say, as I've understood from Rachel and other's posts... However what I would point out is that although ADD and ADHD do not have any single concrete form of diagnosis... But rely on many other fields to evaluate and come to a conclusion...

So although you may say, the doctor was wrong... You must also consult the child psychiatrist, paediatric neurologist, speech therapist to observe and give their own conclusion...

You can say that the lack of social interaction and discipline is one of the causes of this however I believe that history of this would prove you wrong...

A couple of the docs said they think we need tort reform first. He said since more people will be going to the doctor, there will be more lawsuits. I say you went to school to make the big bucks and if you don't do your job right, you should pay the big bucks! Of course there are people who want to sue at the drop of a dime but you have to prove injury or death for medical malpractice and if you can prove it, you should be compensated I think.

Another said he thinks it would be a good idea for the government to pay people's private insurance premiums. I like that idea! But they don't ask them though, they ask the big wigs of the AMA (American Medical Association).