There is government health insurance for those who cannot afford it. States and even counties offer discounted dental, medical and vision programs, some limited to children, others to seniors, some to families. And yes, sometimes assistance is available through service providers.

Hospitals do not have a choice in deciding who gets treatment. Anyone admitted is treated regardless of ability to pay. Of course, the cost is passed on to patients with insurance, raising the rates.

To speculate, or rather to state, that your father-in-law's death from cancer was due to not receiving chemo a month earlier is simply speculation. Even with insurance, even with chemo, the cure rate for certain cancers is quite limited. The best insurance and the best medical care cannot always effect a cure.

And insurance is not the answer either. Patients need to be self-aware and interact with physicians. Generally there are symptoms well before a diagnosis. Ignoring the problem creates a delay which may be insurmountable. It's not only lack of insurance that keeps people out of the doctor's office, it's also the way they are treated. Many doctors, especially those who primarily service low cost HMO patients, only spend a few minutes with the patient. The "assembly line" does not give ample opportunity for doctor-patient discussion and diagnosis. Mandating more time won't work, as the payment is capped and the doctors would not be able to afford to stay in business, between overhead and malpractice insurance.

Universal health care is not a solution. More available, better priced private insurance would be much better.

totally agree!

For the record, I'm not for Universal Health Care. I admit at one time I thought it might be a good idea until I saw the PBS special on health care. Even though other countries have low to no cost programs, the quality did suffer. I don't agree with Hillary's plan. I think I just wanted to point out that because a country has universal health care like Great Britain it doesn't make the country as a whole socialism. That and the US has a health care cost problem. I do believe the US has the best system as far as quality is concerned. Where reform is needed is in costs. I think work needs to be done on better coverage at reasonable premiums on some insurance plans and full-time workers are provided with good health insurance. I believe Medicare needs to be reformed too. Although their is government medical assistance, there is a gap for those who "make too much" to qualify yet cannot afford private health insurance costs. I think health care costs is a big reason why many people voted for Obama. I don't think it's because people don't work hard looking for a handout. I think many do work hard and medical costs are hurting them financially and health wise. I do believe people should take a responsibility in taking care of themselves and using preventive care. Some don't go into the doctors though either because they have no insurance or even with the insurance they have they cannot afford the co payments and deductibles. I know putting off preventive care just makes the bill larger in the long run. At the time when a person can't pay for it, what can they do?

Agree, reforming cost is what's needed.
One look at the brand new "Campus" they just built for a new Hosital and medical complex, along with the constant expansions they do to the existing Hospitals around here lets you know just how much money is being taken in.
These places are the Taj Majhals of Hospitals. Unreal.

I see where you`re coming from...and I tend to agree to a point...
re the quality of health care.... I have a sister living in France,a sister being a surgical nurse in Sweden, a daughter in Denmark and a son in Sweden...and of course I live here...
ALL of them say their health care quality is the best! lol

but since I have not been ill in France, nor Denmark I cannot comment on their care, but I can on the US and Swedish.
both are high quality , with the difference that in the US you will get 'better' care , because you can get it when you need it, sooner...Sweden tends to have better equipment...reason for that it that US hospitals are run like a business where you buy equipment , run it , use it and eventually get new....in Sweden you tend to (at least up to a few years ago) buy the latest ,newest , no matter of the cost ,since its charged off to the tax payers anyway....

our health care here is of great quality, the cost is actually less than in Sweden, but there you see/notice less of the cost ,since its "free" = paid for by taxes.....but as a whole it costs more per patient! just a different way to pay for it...
personally I prefer this way , because of other parts to the system...like you can pick your doctor ,its not assigned per zip code etc...and you can actually get a surgery , even if you might need to pay for it, that is 'deemmed' that you are too old for over there...

Ejecting illegals from our country would be the best place to start. After that, reforming consitancy of care standards is most important. Start a timer as the metrics.

I receive 45 minutes of awesome attention from my Medicare paid provider four times per year. His staff attends to prescription refills and prescription adjustements. He has memory recall of over 2000 patients without pulling my file and knows my health problems first hand. He has called me at 7 PM after a long hard day to ajust medications. Under Medicare, I could demand treatment or medical visits several times per week from as many physicians as I chose, because there is no financial disadvantage. I could visit providers as quickly as I coud arrive, if that was a choice. There needs to be financial disadvantage for taking what one does not need. Folks should take what they need, but not more than they require.

Other physicians couldn't attend patients faster unless they built the exam rooms on a carousel to shorten the visits. They scan lab test in pretext of providing care, but it is negligent care. They would not know my patient history. The Medicare billing numbers are not really relevant for compenstation between a one minute manager and an involved physician. They are paid the same rate.

I know patients who seek doctor attention numerous times per week, just because the Medicaid system allows that abuse. There is no benefit for this intensive and distracted care. In fact, it is harmful. I had an aquaintance who had three to four doctor visits per week, because there was no financial consequence for his demand for services. In one year he spent what I cost in ten years. And at the end, he had dangerous surgeries that harmed him, because that is what he wanted to hear for advice. If one seeks enough opinions, you can find someone who will harm you by accident or by intent.

I think people should receive the care they need, but not demand or get care that does not help.

Unfortunately the issues you describe below are not limited to Medicare patients.

I am enrolled in one of the region's biggest HMOs, and I've already related a few of my observations regarding minimal care and attention by many of the providers. Our original family physician dropped patients insured under the plan because of the reduced compensation for services, and he did not want to lower his quality of care but he determined he could not serve those patients for the amount he could bill.

We went through a couple of interim physicians who came in for 5 minutes then ordered lab tests that didn't solve anything before deciding to drive all the way across town to visit a physician we know personally. We receive great care, and excellent personal attention. Our plan has no limits on the number of visits, we have no deductibles, and the copays are minimal. Even so, we visit only when we NEED to.

Obviously each person has a different view on what medical care constitutes "necessary", but the only way I can think to control it would be to have spending limits for routine care while providing necessary and prudent treatment for catastrophic illness or injury.