Arizona mulling no health care for illegal immigrants

When Mini Militant was born, I was slightly disgruntled to discover that the illegal immigrants in the room next to us (lovely couple, by the way) were having their son's extensive hospital stay paid for by the hospital trust because they didn't have insurance.

The fact that they're required to do this by New Jersey state law explains why the birth of our baby boy wound up costing our insurer $40,000 or more.

'Paying customers' like us were basically picking up the shortfall for giving tens of thousands of dollars of 'free' care to the uninsured (and, if we didn't, the hospital would go out of business.)

In California, where there are many more illegal immigrants, the legal requirement to give treatment to the uninsured has actually resulted in a slew of hospitals and clinics shutting up shop. It's a very serious issue and one of the major reasons why health care costs are spiralling out of control all across the country.

Well, in Arizona they've said: "No more."

Republican lawmakers in Arizona have proposed a bill that would require hospitals to check the immigration status of each patient before they were checked in - and refuse them service if they were illegal.

Arizona SB 1405 "Before a hospital admits a person for nonemergency care, a hospital admissions officer must confirm that the person is a citizen of the United States, a legal resident of the United States or lawfully present in the United States."

The bill would require hospitals to refuse treatment to non-urgent patients, and force them to call federal immigration officers after giving urgent care to illegal aliens. These were important steps, the sponsors of the bill argued, to reining in what they defined as rampant abuse of Arizona's medical system.

"I get calls from doctors and nurses every day that work in the emergency rooms," argues State Senate President Russell Pearce, co-sponsor of the bill. "They're talking about the abuse. The millions of dollars spent for folks who come in for pregnancy tests, sniffles. They use emergency room services as their primary care physician. When do we stand up for the taxpayers? Those who pay for insurance? There's a cost to this. The cost of hundreds of millions of dollars."

"No, nobody is going to turn those folks down. The federal law still requires us to take emergencies and stabilize them. What we want to do is stop the inducement. Quit inviting people over the border. While we give them free stuff, they come here and get free medical. I have to pay for my insurance, they walk in, because they're illegal they get free care, they use the emergency room as the primary care physician. We're saying enough is enough."

Is 'enough' enough?

I admit, I share the frustration of Pearce and the sponsors of the bill - but ultimately I have a decidedly European outlook to health care and feel that providing medical care to all is one of the basic, fundamental requirements of a civilized country.

Yet with America spending more on health care than any other country on Earth - and medicare and other entitlements about to send the nation into virtual foreclosure - can we afford to give foreign nationals [illegal foreign nations, to clarify - not legal aliens - Editorial Bear] the medical care they should be getting at home?

What are you thoughts?

Public Health Care is Nearly Here

It’s that time of year again – when I pick the health insurance options for myself and my family.

Last year – in just twelve months – my out-of-pocket premiums jumped by 20%. This year, the cost increase wasn’t quite so high, but coverage was halved in certain key areas.

One thing became clear – just like every year, I’m paying more to insure my family, and receiving less. Obama’s much-touted health care reform hasn’t done anything to stop the sky-rocketing costs.

But I’m one of the lucky ones. Hitting the newspapers recently have been stories about companies demanding to be excluded from health care requirements entirely. Even McDonalds is amongst them – complaining that the insurance they offer their hourly workers simply can’t meet the cost/service requirements the government has set.

Other companies have simply looked at the math and decided that it’s cheaper to take a $2000 fine for each employee they fail to cover than to actually pay to insure them. The result is more and more American workers unable to get health insurance through their job.

And the result? They join the ranks of the already 40% of Americans who receive their health insurance through the government.

At first glance, the immediate affects of ‘Obamacare’ have been disastrous (and are going to hit the Democrats hard come the November 2nd elections.)

Yet in some ways, it’s actually a tremendous victory for those on the left of the party. Many Democrats, including the late Ted Kennedy, fought bitterly for a single-payer health care system like that of every other first world country in the world. The inadvertent result of ‘Obamacare’ is that they might end up getting exactly that.

20% premium increases year-on-year are simply unsustainable. When I was self-employed, I was expected to pay $1,200 a month for health insurance - which was more than my rent.

The fact is, private health insurance is already on the brink of pricing itself out of existence. There’s no doubt it will do exactly that within the decade, and the majority of working and middle class Americans will then have no choice but to sign up for a government-funded plan.

I estimate the result will be 90% of Americans becoming part of a ‘government’ health care system, and the richest minority paying for private health insurance. Incidentally, that’s exactly the public/private healthcare breakdown for people in Britain (home of one of the only true ‘socialized’ health care system in the world.)

By those standards, a single-payer health care system has already arrived – it’s just most Americans haven’t realized it yet. The question is: Do you think that's a good thing or a bad thing?

Game Change: Health Care

One of the most important points of Stephen M. Pollan's 'Die Broke' and 'Live Rich' books was that life in the American workplace had changed.

So many of America's institutions are based on a business model that belongs back in the golden age of the 1950s - when people earned livable wages in a job they might have for twenty or thirty years.

Health insurance is probably the most obvious of these; the American private insurance system worked beautifully when people worked for the same company for most of their adult lives; and therefore stuck with the same insurance company.

However, the system no longer works like that.

In general, people don't have 'jobs for life' any more. In fact, in Die Broke Pollan pointed out that most successful Americans give each job two years and then move onto something new - and if it's not the 'new American worker' jumping ship, it's corporate reshuffles firing huge portions of their workforce to improve margins and nudge company stock up a few cents.

This fluidity in the workplace is actually a real boon for corporate America. With less job security, companies can pay less to attract employees, or offer reduced benefit packages. Old institutions, like powerful unions who bent companies over a barrel for wage increases, are rapidly becoming a thing of the past (and partly because of their own greed and short-sightedness; a good example being in the American auto industry.)

But this is a terrible thing for you and me; the average American worker.

Not having any security in your job is a terrifying thing; I spent two years in my last job with the Pink Slip of Damocles hanging over my head and when it finally dropped, it was almost a relief not to have to worry about whether your job, or your entire company, would exist the following week.

But more noticeably, a fluid workforce means that wages are driven down; middle class incomes in America have actually dropped by 9% since the year 2000. The concept of a 'living wage' is becoming something of a fantasy. When I first moved here, the wonderful thing about America was that it was still possible to live on one person's income. These days, the cash-strapped middle class are finding that both parents need to go out to work just to make ends meet (as has occurred in most of the much more heavily taxed countries of Europe.)

And then there are benefits...

I've written several posts on the subject, but I'll reiterate my point one last time; losing your job is a terrifying thing in the United States. Just yesterday, our doctor called us to tell us that our health insurance had been canceled; it turned out that the company picking us up from our last program hadn't processed the forms we sent them two weeks ago, which in turn meant that the coverage that was meant to start at the beginning of the month hadn't.

Fortunately we got the situation sorted and our coverage reinstated retroactively; but it was a scary moment. Middle class families go bankrupt every single day because of medical expenses.

My point is this; back in the 1950s, when people had 'jobs for life', the idea of private medical insurance worked beautifully because people would stay with the same insurance company for decades. These days, the workforce is constantly switching jobs; and the current system is inadequate to deal with that.

What's worse, the health insurance companies have used this as an excuse to make gouging premium increases and quietly sift out the 'uninsurables' along the way; the poor folks who actually need health care, but can't get access to it because of 'pre-existing conditions.'

As Andy and Paul Mitchell pointed out in my last post on the subject; 45% of Americans are already on some kind of government-funded health insurance program and that figure is increasing every single day.

This is why I believe we'll have a European-style single payer system - so-called 'socialized medicine' - within the decade; because the private insurance companies are eating themselves alive and leaving more and more people for the government to look after.

One final point about the changing face of the American workforce; it's becoming increasingly popular, or necessary, to become one's own boss here in the states. 42 million Americans class themselves as 'freelancers' and that's a figure that's increasing every single day.

Working as free agents can be an attractive proposition; with fewer companies hiring full-time employees, a temporary contract worker is a commitment-free way to get the skilled staff you require onboard without having to offer them benefits and salary.

Along with single-payer health care, I wouldn't be surprised if the entire American middle-class was 'unemployed' within a decade; working for themselves as 'private contractors' and pulling extended gigs with companies that are too frugal to hire employees full-time any more.

But this is the area in which the current health care system is most deficit. Buying insurance outside of a company scheme is tough. Many people are denied because of pre-existing conditions. The rest are forced to pay 300% more than they would as part of a company scheme. It's currently an impossible situation; only the most successful freelancers can survive within it.

In the next few years, though, individual purchasers, such as freelancers, are going to become the largest growing customers for health insurance. Unless the insurance providers grow up and start offering them affordable coverage, this 'freelance middle class' will be the single biggest catalyst to ensuring the inevitable introduction of 'government funded' health care for all.

If the raging debate on the health care industry has helped me realize anything, it's that this is a battle the opponents of 'socialized medicine' have already lost.

Progress, or nothing like it...

I am a proud American.

I mean, technically I'm not - since I'm not an American and don't have citizenship yet - but when it comes to my attitude to life, the American mentality fits me like a glove.

Take unemployment, for example. Uncle Sam owes me months of plump unemployment cheques and I'm not interested in accepting a single one of them.

I want to work. I've had that attitude ever since I first entered the job pool. In my life, I've spent precisely two weeks on 'the dole' and soon traded my $40 a week of unemployment payments for $38 a week spent tending bar in the roughest club in Cornwall.

I'd rather work than not, even if I don't get any extra money for it.

In America, the system ostensibly rewards you for that attitude. I have the option of claiming months of unemployment cheques, but instead I made a couple of phone calls and founds myself a job two weeks after getting fired earning just a little bit more.

In the land of opportunity, there's always a dollar to be earned if you're willing to get out and shovel for it (or, in my case, write a shitload of marketing copy.)

But this is where the 'American dream' loses its luster and you suddenly see the advantage of the so-called 'socialist' European system.

In Europe, thanks to universal health care coverage, you could happily leap into temporary work assignments and support yourself and your family well into the indefinite future.

In America? Not so much...

Because while I can earn the same dollar amount working a temporary writing assignment, such gigs don't cover health insurance. Instead, I'm forced to rely on the federal system, COBRA, or try and find such 'benefits' privately. They are, for want of a better term, extortionate.

COBRA, the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, gives workers up to twelve months of their former health insurance after being laid off. However, they have to pay the entire whack, rather than what their employer previously covered. For me, that turns a $120 monthly payment into an $800 one.

Likewise, the cheapest health insurance package available for my family in New Jersey was $650 a month and covered the bare minimum, with huge out-of-pocket percentages.

It's not until you're 'out there' trying to find health care coverage for yourself and your family that you realize quite how broken the American system is.

What I find so frustrating is that the right wing and the idiot 'tea partiers' are arguing that there's nothing wrong with the current health care system - but that's because they're blinkered dolts who all have health care provided for them by their mundane day jobs. Throw them into the same situation as I'm in right now and hopefully they'd realize that the health insurance companies of America are bleeding them dry in a shameless act of extortion.

But, sadly, few of these idiots are presented with reality very often and that's why they keep peddling their poorly informed right-wing rubbish.

These idiots are supposed to be all about what makes America great - which is independence and opportunity. Instead, they're backing a system that perpetuates a generation of health care slavery - with people forced to work underpaid, under-appreciated jobs merely for the benefits they offer.

I propose something truly radical - a country in which affordable health care was available for all, regardless of whether or not it was bought through your employer. I'd quite happily never take a full time job again - and earn a lot more money and generate a heck of a lot more income for the economy doing so - if I knew I could guarantee health coverage for my family independently.

Unfortunately, that's fantasy. While the left wing talk about 'government sponsored' health care, the right wing are perpetuating a system that's nearly as tyrannical - one in which corporations possess the same monopoly that the 'tea partiers' are worried the government might one day have.

Ultimately, they're as dogmatic as the most left-wing Democrats and I'm left realizing that the true spirit of American independence - individualism, personal responsibility and opportunity - is something far beyond their comprehension.

Militant Ginger for Hire

This January, the Obama administration proudly announced that the unemployment rate had hit it's lowest figure since August of last year. All that good news, however, didn't prevent that reduced figure from including lil' old me.

Yep, Militant Ginger, le grand rouge, was unfortunately laid off this week. I didn't take it personally - many of my colleagues were given the similar boot - but it doesn't stop it being a bit of a blow to both the ego and the bank balance.

In fact, Mummy Militant and I had spent the past few months frantically scrimping and saving to avoid debt consolidation so we could think about buying a house and now all that hard work looks like it's in jeopardy.

The great irony of my plunge into unemployment is that just three days earlier, I'd been volunteering at our local church's homeless shelter. I realized then that an awful lot of Americans were only ever a paycheque or two away from living on the streets. It seems the reward for realizing that uncomfortable truth was to wind up a step closer towards the same predicament myself!

Joking aside, I've decided not to be too glum about my situation. This is, after all, the 'land of opportunity' and if there's one difference between America and Europe, it's that there's always a fistful of dollar bills waiting for you if you're willing to work for it.

Right now I'm just getting my schiznitz together and seeing what opportunities are out there for me. Pretty soon, I hope to start plucking them.

This whole experience has taught me a lot, though; not least of which how America isn't quite as friendly to entrepreneurship as I'd first imagined. Even though I wrote in posts like this about the flaws in Europe's universal health care, I realized a much larger one in the American system as soon as I stopped being part of a company health care plan. Health care is bloody expensive.

I don't mean to brag, but I'm a reasonable wag with a word processor and have a fair bit of talent for writing and copy writing. When unemployment struck, I'd even considered the possibility of launching off into a career of my own as a professional independent writer. (Don't joke; it wasn't beyond the realms of possibility to achieve this.)

However, the health care issue puts a spanner into the works a bit. Working for a company, as part of their company health care program, my health care costs were about $300 a month, with me picking up about a third of that. An entirely manageable proposition.

Now I'm out on my own, trying to live the 'American Dream?'

$800 a month, easy. In fact, health care insurance for myself and my family could quite effortlessly equal my rent if I decided to try and purchase it privately.

Considering that it's a four-fold increase, or ten-fold if you consider my out-of-pocket expenses, it's not difficult to see why more Americans don't take the plunge into going it on their own. The health care costs in this country are, for want of a better description, completely fucking insane.

So I don't mind admitting that I've lost a lot of sympathy for the 'Tea Baggers' and 'Tea Partiers' who are out there protesting against health care reform. They probably all have twee little jobs which give them affordable health insurance and none of them have a clue about how broken the American health care system really is. Shame on them.

Anyway. Moving onto my second great realization; that the government doesn't want me to work.

Living in America, part of each bi-weekly paycheque goes towards unemployment insurance - so if you get canned, you can claim 60% of your salary for a fixed period until you get yourself another job. Sounds all well and good, doesn't it? It's enough so you don't lose your house or starve your kids, but it's a small enough amount that it inspires you to go out and start earning a 'real' paycheque again as soon as humanely possible.

Except, like with health insurance, you're out of luck if you decide to be an entrepreneur and make it on your own. When I got laid off, I realized that some focused effort and hard work could get me earning my old salary again through freelance work and writing in three or four months... If I didn't find a job in the mean time, unemployment insurance meant my family wouldn't starve. I'd be off benefits shortly enough, as who wants to live off 60% of your previous salary when you could earn more than you ever did before?

Except, of course, you're screwed if you try to 'go it alone.' If you're an entrepreneur or a registered business owner - even if that business doesn't make enough money to live off, or even any at all - you can kiss your unemployment benefits goodbye.

Never mind the fact that it's your money, that you paid into the fund - if you proudly call yourself a 'business' then there's no government cheese for you. You're expected to be earning a livable wage from day one (after all, the largely Democrat-leaning East Coast states argue, that's how private business works, right? Right?)

The fact is, if you get laid off from your job it's not the 'opportunity' you might think it is. 'Big Brother' is leaning over your shoulder with a wooden ruler and he'll smack your knuckles if you even dare to think about anything apart from signing up for another 9 to 5 gig.

Entrepreneurship, it seems, is only for the people who already have enough income or savings not to need to be entrepreneurial.

It's definitely a deeply frustrating situation to wind up in, but I'm not going to be despondent. I'm bright, talented and hard working and I'll do whatever it takes to keep food on the table (or 'food on my family' to quote President G.W. Bush) no matter what that entails.

It's just made me more determined than ever to achieve financial independence; because unless you're captain of your own ship, you can ultimately never dictate where you're sailing to.

Why 'Free' Health Care Costs So Much

With the debate about Health Care being quietly shoved onto the back burner over here in America, it's ironic that the failure of so-called 'free' health care in Britain has never been more apparent.

The latest? An article in the venerable Hampshire Chronicle linking the outrageous waiting lists for doctor's appointments with the thousands of 'no shows' at the doctor's office.

MORE patients are failing to turn up for hospital appointments in Winchester, costing the NHS hundreds of thousands of pounds. New figures show that in 2008-09 an estimated 22,000 appointments were missed. Full story here.

As much as I've come to question the privately-funded health care system in America, this is one example of how the right-wing critics of 'socialized medicine' actually make a legitimate point about how 'free' health care is excessively expensive and wasteful.

Case in point? How thousands of people are making doctor's appointments, but never showing up for them. That's why it's so difficult for legitimate patients to get an appointment in a realistic time frame. I remember going to the doctor back in England and having to make an appointment a week, or even two weeks, in advance. In America, they can generally see you the same day.

The difference is, of course, that in America you have to pay for your doctor's appointment. Generally, it costs you about $20 'out of pocket' and your insurance company pick up the rest.

However - and here's the good bit - if you make an appointment and fail to show up, your insurance company still gets billed for it. You booked an hour of the doctor's time and he charges you for it whether you're there or not. However, if you're a 'no show' the insurance company turns its nose up at being expected to cover the cost of your missed appointment and charges you the full whack.

Anywhere from $50 to $250 dollars, payable within 30 days.

As you can imagine, it's an incredibly effective incentive not to miss a doctor's appointment - or, if you do, at least cancel 24 hours in advance.

This is the problem in Britain. Because the doctor's appointments are 'free' there's no value attached to them, so people blithely skip showing up. Then those same idiots complain that there's such a long waiting list.

If you made every NHS patient pay a tenner for a doctor's appointment, I can guarantee that people would think more seriously about whether they really need to see a GP or not. And if you charged them £100 if they missed an appointment they'd made, I bet you'd find attendance improving dramatically.

So instantly; a new revenue stream for the cash-strapped NHS, dramatically shorter waiting lists and probably fewer patients to see overall (only the ones with something actually wrong with them would pay the £10 to go and see a doctor.)

Gordon Brown? David Cameron? If either of you want to adopt this proposal, feel free. If the American health care system has taught me anything, it's that you get what you pay for. In the case of the NHS, that's unfortunately nothing.

The Limp Bill - Max Baucus tackles healthcare

Today, the first of the health care reform bills hits the ballot, with a senate committee vote to send it to the floor.

Devised by Max Baucus and the bipartisan Senate Finance Committee, it's the most conservative of the reform bills being pushed towards a vote - meeting most of Obama's campaign promises, but notably lacking a 'public option.' It's also the bill most likely to be passed.

However, it's a bad bill.

Both Republicans and Democrats have complained about the contents of the Baucus bill. In fact, the only audience that has responded favorably is the health insurance industry itself.

That's hardly surprising - Max Baucus has accepted over $4 million in campaign donations from the health industry, so it's only to be expected that that their requirements took priority over the needs of the American people.

The bill even started off on the wrong foot - instead of discussing every option available to tackle American health care, Baucus was unwilling to even entertain the notion of a single-payer system from the very start. He actually had doctors touting such a system escorted from his committee and arrested - suggesting that his 'exploratory committee' had clearly made it's mind up on which direction it was going in before the first meeting was even called to order.

And what does the Baucus bill deliver? More red tape, a little more gravy for the government and a few meaningless capitulations that will do little to help Americans struggling to cover their health care costs.

It's Washington playing the same old game - politicians looking out for themselves and leaving the voters hanging. I'm as desperate for health care reform as everybody else in the country - but if this is the shape it's in, Baucus can keep it.

Ask Militant Ginger

It's that time again! When I trawl through the 'keyword analysis' to answer the questions that somehow drove search engines into recommending this blog:

Why are so many Americans against the NHS?

Lies, damn lies and statistics. Depending on who you go to, you'll find that the majority of Americans want to keep the health care system exactly as it is, or adopt a single-payer system like they have in most industrialized countries. In February, polls put that figure as high as 59%.

Recently, the National Health Service of Great Britain has received a lot of flak, being held up by conservatives as an example of how 'terrible' a single-payer system would be if it was implemented here in the United States. Admittedly, there are some horror stories about the NHS, many of which I've perpetuated right here on Militant Ginger!

But conservatives neatly side-step the fact that the British health care system is ranked considerably higher than Americas - and the UK has a lower infant mortality rate and higher life expectancy. While American health care at it's best is undoubtedly superior to that of Britain - at it's most mediocre, it's arguably worse.

Sadly, there will always be a compromise between quality of care and breadth of coverage. In many ways, the NHS and the American system are the two most polarized examples of each philosophy - and many Americans will rail against 'nationalized health care' simply because of that reason.

How does the American private health care system work?

Very, very confusingly.

In America, health care is 'private.' That means, unlike in the UK, the government don't own and operate hospitals, ambulances, doctor's offices or laboratories. They're all independent businesses out there to make a profit.

When you visit a doctor, or get a test done, you get billed for it personally. As these medical bills can add up incredibly quickly, most people buy 'health insurance' to pick up some or all of the costs. For example, health insurance will generally cover as much as 90% of the cost of an operation, with the private individual paying the 10% difference.

The problem is that health insurance itself is quite expensive, since the bills are so high. It can easily cost $300 or $400 a month to cover a small family. Therefore, employers often offset the salary they give their employees by offering health care coverage instead. They can get group discounts for using the same company to insure all of their employees - and that means the individual gets a keener rate.

Companies cover either the entire cost of health insurance, or a portion of it.

If you're self-employed you can buy your own health insurance, although you have to pick up the entire cost, instead of a company covering all or part of it. Also, because you don't get the 'group discount' you tend to pay a higher rate.

Finally, health insurance is like car insurance - it costs more or less depending on your coverage. For example, you can get cheap insurance that only covers emergencies, or more expensive coverage that covers the bulk of medical costs. Likewise, you can adjust the percentage of the medical bills you're expected to cover 'out-of-pocket' with higher or lower premiums.

The problem with this system is that health care costs are continuing to rise. In the last decade, health insurance premiums have doubled. That means more and more of a percentage of people's salaries are going towards covering their families.

Even worse, more and more coverage is being dropped by the health insurance companies to keep their costs down. This means the consumer is paying more and getting less - and it's a generally accepted fact that there's not enough competition between health insurance companies to keep prices keen.

It's a system that has both major advantages and serious flaws. The problem with 90% of the people who argue about how to improve the current setup, however, is that they're not fully cognizant of both.

What is a derogatory term for a life-long politician?

A 'Democrat'*.

America's longest standing Senator - and former Ku Klux Klan member - Robert Byrd

*Nod to Tom - Editorial Bear

How do you start writing erotica for money?

Let me get one thing straight- nobody got rich writing erotica.

The opportunities for making money writing sauce, smut, erotica and pornography are increasingly elusive, as more and more people attempt to get in on the act. There's a misunderstanding going on that writing erotica is somehow easier than writing anything else. That's really far from being true.

I have made my fair share of money writing smut - but it quickly lost it's novelty value. The pay is low, the competition is high and it's a fairly thankless task.

But the opportunities are out there. A good place to start is with Hustler Fantasies, who publish about twelve or fourteen stories every month (and pay $25 for each one.) You can find out more here.

Alternatively, you can aim for a higher-brow audience, by submitting something to the queen of Erotic fiction, Alison Tyler, or a high-class magazine like Jacques. Just be aware that they have excruciatingly high standards and you'll either be expected to submit your first few works for free, or share royalties with dozens of other writers.

If I haven't talked you out of it, though, I still recommend writing commercial erotica simply to become a better writer. Why? Because it's surprisingly good training for 'real' writing.

1. Magazines like Hustler have a specific style - and getting a story accepted involves developing incredibly self-discipline to keep within the expected guidelines.
2. Erotic teaches a writer brevity. Exposition isn't foreplay. Word limits can be brutal. Keeping your writing focused, curt and efficient is an excellent habit to get into.
3. Most readers are looking for a specific genre - sometimes a specific sex-act - so writers need to learn to cater to their audience. This is the single most important lesson a writer can learn.

It's also excellent training for the simple habits of writing commercially - letters to editors, keeping track of submissions. If you take up writing erotic for money, I can promise you two things. Firstly, if you sell even one story, you will have become a better writer. Secondly, by the time you've sold that story, you'll probably have grown utterly, utterly jaded about how 'easy' and 'fun' writing erotica really is!

Why do women die their hair red?

Because unlike in the UK, where red hair is seen almost as birth defect, most civilized countries consider red hair to be attractive and distinctive, especially on a woman.

In France especially, many women dye their hair red (or some close approximation thereof) and 'the redhead' is a staple of film noir and hard-boiled fiction over in America. A redheaded woman, like the one Bruce Springsteen wailed about, is seen as passionate, sexy, emotional and just a little bit dangerous.

The only problem? You really can't fake it. Because red hair is normally accompanied by pale skin and beautiful green or blue eyes, most women who attempt to mimic a natural Titian end up failing. It can look pretty, but it never looks natural.

And, as I've found out by going both black and blond, that is true the other way around, too!

(This beautiful redhead is Kristen Carter, whose profile on Model Mayhem can be found here.)

What’s the connection between Erica Henderson and Pete Abrams?

Pete Abrams is the incredible brain behind Sluggy Freelance, my favorite webcomic and my first port-of-call when I do the Internet rounds each morning.

Erica Henderson is the sublimely talented cartoonist, artist and all-round everything from I Fail At Life, who I just think is the Bee's Knees.

For a short time, Erica stood in as 'Saturday girl' for Pete's webcomic - allowing him to take a day off from Sluggy to concentrate on his family.

The result was some wonderful artwork that took the wonderful creations of Pete's comic and put Erica's unique spin on them.

Sadly, she's not doing the Saturday art any more - but those filler strips certainly stand out as some of my favorite of all time.

Redux: NHS vs. American Health Care

A reader pointed out that my post yesterday was very, very long - which is fine, apart from when you painstakingly dissect facts and figures and suffix it all with a statement like 'but that's all irrelevant to the matter at hand.' So, because Shakespeare said that 'brevity is the soul of wit' here is the same column with the fluff removed:

72% of NHS patients complain that the stethoscope is too cold

Comparing the British NHS to American Health Care
Now with 50% less superfluous exposition!

Comparing the NHS and the current health care system in the United States isn't really fair or helpful.

On the one hand, the American system can be criticized for being monstrously expensive and not covering enough of its citizens. Per capita, it costs twice as much to offer health care to the population of the United States - yet Fox News reports that 13.4% of Americans are still left without coverage.

The United Kingdom, on the other hand, has universal coverage, a lower rate of infant mortality and a longer average life expectancy. The cost of giving medical coverage to Britain's citizens is also several thousand dollars less per person than in America.

But while Britain's health care is cheaper and covers the whole population, many people argue that this is only possible thanks to the indirect benefits of America's privately funded system.

It's a fact that many of the worlds leading pharmaceutical companies are based in the United States - and most of the new and exciting drugs and treatments emerge from the American health care system. The US system absorbs the related costs of researching and developing these new treatments (perhaps explaining why their health care costs so much more.)

And without having to pay for 'inventing' them, British patients benefit from these new drugs and treatments - just not immediately. Most commonly prescribed medication is as much as a decade 'behind' the new and exciting drugs available in America.

But at least British patients don't have to pay for that development - and that cuts a huge chunk out of the related costs of running a universal health care system.

Perhaps that's not a fair analysis - but it does offer an explanation for the gross disparity between the costs of universal health care in Britain and America's privately funded system.

America's race to develop new treatments also explains why some areas of medicine - like the treatment of cancer - are notably 'better' in America than in the UK.

Some British people have to come to America to get the medical treatment that's simply not available to them at home. Meanwhile, drugs developed in America make a huge impact when they're eventually adopted by the NHS.

So it's fair to argue that the two systems are inextricably linked - and the discussion about changing the way America looks after the health of her 300 million citizens actually affects far more people than just those with a US passport.

How the NHS rates against American Health Care

72% of NHS patients complain that the stethoscope is too cold

The inimitable Siger forwarded an article to me about a recent report by the UK's Patient's Association - which claims that hundreds of thousands of patients have suffered 'neglectful, demeaning, painful and sometimes downright cruel' treatment at the hands of the NHS doctors and nurses.

"The report disclosed a horrifying catalogue of elderly people left in pain, in soiled bed clothes, denied adequate food and drink, and suffering from repeatedly cancelled operations, missed diagnoses and dismissive staff."

It's a fascinating article and one that will no-doubt yield bundles of ammunition for American conservatives intent on criticizing Obama's much-lauded 'public' health care option (even though what he's proposing is very far from the almost Soviet-style National Health Service in the UK.)

But what interested me was in the conclusion of the article.

Chris Beasley, Chief Nursing Officer at the Department of Health, is quoted in defending the NHS, citing that: "...recent patient experience surveys show that 93 percent of patients rate their overall care as good or excellent."

Why is this so interesting?

Because Fox News, that bastion of 'fair and balanced' reporting, recently cited that 89% percent of Americans had been similarly satisfied with the most recent treatment they'd received. This actually increased to 93% for those patients who'd recently suffered a serious illness.

Which is, somewhat coincidentally, the same percentage as those satisfied with their treatment from the NHS.

You can take that observation how you will - either as an indication that both systems are comparably successful, or to allege that both the NHS and Fox News are using conspicuously slanted statistics to support their agenda!

But what's really interesting is looking at the other end of these much-touted facts and figures - like the Fox News analysis which concludes that 'only' five million Americans are both uninsured and 'very dissatisfied' with the quality of health care they receive - roughly around 2% of the population.

According to the NHS article, the patients receiving what they determined as 'poor' care extrapolated to over one million people - also roughly about 2% of the population.

The same figure. Again.

To my mind, it just goes to reinforce the fact that there isn't a right and a wrong answer to providing health care for a nation's citizens. The best and worth of both seem comparable - whereas we really know they're not.

On the one hand, the American system can be criticized for being monstrously expensive and not covering enough of its citizens. Per capita, it costs twice as much to offer health care to the population of the United States - yet Fox News reports that 13.4% of Americans are still left without coverage.

The World Health Organization rank the United States as having the 37th best coverage in the world; not exactly a figure to boast about.

The United Kingdom, on the other hand, is ranked 18. Britain also has a lower rate of infant mortality and a longer average life expectancy. The cost of giving medical coverage to Britain's citizens is several thousand dollars less per person than in America (and, of course, covers everybody and costs its citizens nothing.)

But in many ways, such statistics tell us nothing.

Because while Britain's health care is cheaper and covers more people, many people argue that this is an indirect benefit of America's privately funded health care system.

It's a fact that many of the worlds leading pharmaceutical companies are based in the United States - and most of the new and exciting drugs and treatments emerge from the American health care system. The US system absorbs the related costs of researching and developing these new treatments (perhaps explaining why their health care costs so much more.)

And without having to pay for 'inventing' them, British patients do eventually benefit from these new drugs and treatments - just not immediately. The NHS generally offers only 'generic' medication, the copyrights of which have expired, meaning that most commonly prescribed medication is as much as a decade 'behind' the new and exciting drugs available in America.

But at least they don't have to pay for that development - or the research, marketing or related bumf. That cuts a huge chunk out of the related costs of running a universal health care system.

Perhaps that's not a fair analysis - in many way, it makes the NHS seem like a parasite, sucking drugs, treatments and developments from better funded health care systems - but it does offer an explanation for the gross disparity between the costs of running universal health care in Britain and the price of America's privately funded system.

America's race to develop new treatments also explains why some areas of medicine - like the treatment of cancer - are notably 'better' in America than in the UK.

So there's a truth we don't discuss much in the health care debate - that no nation's policy towards medicine exists entirely in a vacuum.

Some British people have to come to America to get the medical treatment that's simply not available to them at home. Meanwhile, drugs developed in America make a huge impact when they're eventually adopted by the NHS.

Because of that, the two systems are inextricably linked - as are the health care systems of Canada and other nations with a publicly funded system that benefits from America's private one.

This means that the discussion about changing the way America looks after the health of her 300 million citizens in reality affects far more people than just those with a US passport.

Brownshirts Bulldoze Health Care Reform

These days, a lot of people seem to forget that Adolf Hitler was democratically elected.

Not entirely voluntarily democratically elected - but voted into office by a majority of his peers nevertheless.

With the support of his thuggish supporters, the Sturmabteilung - better known to us as 'brownshirts' - he managed to bully and bulldoze his way into office through the use of propaganda, lies, political machinations and old-fashioned violence.

"All opposition must be stamped into the ground," was the Sturmabteilung's official motto - and they lived by it.

How exactly did the brownshirts forward Hitler's campaign? Well, let's examine some of their methods:

• Misinformation (distributing lies and false information to discredit opponents)
• Disruption (disorderly or violent interruption of the political process.)
• Intimidation (using the threat of violence to pressure politicians to capitulate.)

The climax of the 'brownshirts' campaign was the Enabling Act of 1933, Ermächtigungsgesetz, which saw the German parliament, the Reichstag, vote to give Adolf Hitler dictatorial rule over Germany.

Why would the politicians of Germany grant Hitler such extraordinary and unprecedented power? Because they were too terrified not to.

On the morning of the vote, hundreds of heavily armed Sturmabteilung swarmed the Reichstag, sending a very clear and intimidating message to Hitler's opponents that the penalty for resisting his rise to power would be very serious.

Enabling Act of 1933: Democracy at the point of a gun...

In the end, all but one political party voted to grant Hitler control of Germany - and the 26 dissenters from the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands party were promptly arrested for failing to capitulate.

Thus, through intimidation and the threat of violence, tyranny was born.

The truly scary thing?

We're witnessing those very same tactics being employed in America's health care debate - and they're working.

Modern-day brownshirts.

I identified the three main tactics of Hitler's Sturmabteilung earlier - misinformation, disruption and intimidation.

Pictures of misguided protesters taken from Looking at the Left

They're very effective tactics - as we can see demonstrated today.

Misinformation: From Sarah Palin creating the fantasy of 'death panels' to House Republican Leader John Boehner warning about 'government encouraged euthanasia,' it seems the only commodity that's off limits in the conservative assault on 'Obamacare' is the truth.

Yet, watching protesters wave placards reading 'Obamacare is Arsenic for Seniors' and 'Obamacare is a Death Sentence' prove that this campaign of lies and misinformation is working.

Disruption: All it takes is a few angry voices to turn a Town Hall style political event into a madhouse, but like the Sturmabteilung before them, Conservatives are actively organising campaigns to maximise the disruption.

Leading health-care industry lobbyists - like disgraced hospital owner Rick Scott - have teamed up with grassroots conservative movements to coordinate disruptions specifically intended to stifle debate and 'rattle' Democratic politicians.

Whether it's forty people chanting anti-Obama slogans (and drowning out all other voices) or single showboaters holding up Obama posters defaced with a Hitler moustache, the effect is the same.

[Tom posted a link suggesting that the Obama/Hitler posters were staged by the Democrats - Editorial Bear]

Rational debate is slaughtered, politicians are silenced and the Conservative movement hobbles democracy still further.

Intimidation: But perhaps the most terrifying demonstration of Nazi tactics is the increasingly common sight of heavily armed Conservatives at health care debates. Carrying assault rifles, or pistols strapped to their hips, these right-wing activists are sending the same message that the Sturmabteilung did when they set up machine-gun posts outside the Reichstag. 'Defy us, and pay the penalty.'

There are 'gun rights' and then there's open intimidation of their political opponents - and increasingly, the intentions of the gun-carrying protestors are becoming very clear: If democracy doesn't provide them with the results they seek, they have other methods at their disposal.

Although comparisons between modern politics and the Nazi movement are generally discredited by Godwin's Law and the principle of Reductio ad Hitlerum - perhaps they shouldn't be in this case.

[Is the 'Hitler' comparison overused by both liberals and conservatives? - Editorial Bear]

Conservatives want to paint an image of themselves as 'tea partiers' embodying the rebellious spirit which founded America - but have they crossed the line from 'rebellious spirit' into fascist thugdom? If not - how long will it take until they do?

One thing's for sure - if we don't do something about it, American health care reform will be decided by liars, angry mobs and gun-toting thugs - and that will benefit nobody.

Sarah Palin's Health Care Stupidity

"The Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing," former Alaska governor Sarah Palin angrily roared on Wednesday night.

"The sick, the elderly and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system, these ‘unproductive’ members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care or not."

Of course, Sarah Palin's legions of adoring right-wing fans screeched in approval at her outburst - but does their condemnation of Obama's health care proposals actually hold up to scrutiny?

The simple answer is: No.

Because as opposed to government-run health care as I am, Sarah Palin's accusations could equally be leveled at the existing health care system - the one she's fighting to preserve.

"Unproductive’ members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care or not," Palin screams. But surely a private system, run by insurance companies that can arbitrarily decide that a sick person is 'uninsurable', rations health care to those who need it most in exactly the same way.

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil," Palin wrote last Friday.

But surely a privately-run system, in which people who can't afford it simply don't get access to private medical care, is equally 'evil.'

Sarah Palin's Down syndrome baby, Trig, has access to wonderful medical care - because his mother is rich. Thousands of other Down syndrome babies, born to parents who can't afford private medical insurance, are looked after by the same Government-run, 'free' health care system that Sarah Palin is complaining about. Their health coverage is 'rationed.'

My whole problem with the Republican approach to attacking health care reform is that it's all built on lies and misinformation.

President Obama's not suggesting 'socialized' health care - yet that's what these idiots are waving on their placards outside the Town Hall meetings.

While yes, President Obama is proposing that the government cover the cost of treating America's millions of uninsured - but how is that different than the insured covering the cost of treating them? Through vastly bloated premiums - as is the case now.

Remember, there already is universal health care in America. The Republicans are trying to ignore that fact, while Obama's merely trying to pay for it.

The unfortunate thing is that sound-bites and angry rants are the fuel-stuff of the Conservative movement. The more pundits like Palin get them fired up with horror stories of 'death panels' and 'socialized medicine', the more they'll oppose Obama's health care reforms without understanding what they are.

The Republicans have always been good at appealing to the lowest common denominator and working up a crowd to fever pitch. It's just unfortunate that, in this instance, they're doing it merely to oppose anything Obama proposes, rather than to actually benefit themselves, their loved ones or anybody who relies on America's health care system.

Curing America's Health Care

A while ago, I wrote about how America's 'private' health care system currently costs the taxpayer almost as much as running the British National Health Care service - and then charges the consumer even more than that on top!

Well, the fact that American health care costs too much is no longer under debate. Today, Price Waterhouse Coopers' Health Research Institute listed money-wasting problems that cause the American health care industry to pour $1.2 trillion down the drain every year (roughly half of the money spent on medicine.)

What were these financial hemorrhages? Here are some of the worst ones identified by Price Waterhouse Cooper:

1. Two many tests. Making an informed diagnosis is one thing. Running unnecessary tests is another. Capping malpractice suits and encouraging 'evidence-based' diagnosis could cut the amount of expensive tests performed in half - and save insurance companies billions.
2. Insurance company bureaucracy. I've already argued that the insurance companies are almost criminal in their bureaucratic incompetence, but the proof is finally here. Doctors report that 40% of their revenue is spent filling in insurance company certification - simply getting the money for the services they've performed. Price Waterhouse Cooper argue that standardized forms and a computerized database system (as touted by President Obama) could shred this waste of time and money - cutting doctor's overheads dramatically and lowering costs for both insurance companies and patients.
3. Paper prescriptions. It's not just the insurance companies who are behind the times. Many doctors can send 'electronic prescriptions' to a patient's chemist almost instantly, but over $4 billion a year is wasted by doctors who still insist on writing their prescriptions the old fashioned way.
4. 'Free' medical care for the uninsured. No, I'm not arguing that people without insurance shouldn't receive care. What is causing a problem is them using the Emergency Room as a primary care provider. Illegal immigrants and the uninsured go to the ER for strep throat and other 'regular' health problems, which a GP would normally deal with. A GP visit would cost around $70. A trip to the ER costs $700. At the end of the day, those costs are passed along to the paying customer (i.e. us) if the hospitals or doctors don't get reimbursed.
5. Over-prescribing antibiotics. It's estimated that prescribing antibiotics for conditions they simply can't treat (like coughs, colds and flu) costs over a billion dollars in wasted medicine and contributes to the development of antibiotic-immune MRSA bacteria, which in turn add an additional $3 billion worth care-associated infections. Doctors need to start practicing the medicine they studied and not give out antibiotics as placebos.
   
6. Hospital Bed Churn. It's estimated that $25 billion is spent every year on providing medical care to patients who are discharged from hospital too early. The pressure to get 'em in and churn 'em out inspires doctors and hospitals to discharge patients before they're ready - and the added cost of ambulance trips, re-admittance and recovery hurts all of our wallets.
   

The grand total, Price Waterhouse Cooper argue, is a whopping $1.2 trillion in wasted expenditure. Just imagine if we slashed that spending.

If you could, you might arguably maintain the current system on taxpayer dollars alone (according to this Economist report.) Alternatively, you could dramatically slash insurance premiums for the majority of us with coverage.

But identifying the waste and actually dealing with it are two starkly different things. One's got to wonder if either party will actually use this information, now that Price Waterhouse Cooper has made it available. I'm skeptical.

The Republican party is currently gunning to maintain the current system - bitterly fighting against any of Obama's suggested health care reforms whilst simultaneously failing to provide any worthwhile alternative suggestions of their own.

Meanwhile, many Democrats are still wound up in fantasies of 'universal health care' and demolishing a private industry which provides almost 20% of the United State's GDP - all for the sake of a government-run system that's been proven not to work in half a dozen other countries.

How much does 'Private' medical care cost the taxpayer?

The Economist blew me out of the water today with their analysis of the American Health Care system. In acknowledging it's strong points (like excellent cancer recovery rates) it exposed something I think most Republicans would find surprising.

Compared to other countries - including countries with entirely 'socialized' medicine like Great Britain - the American tax-payer pays just as much to treat people (and sometimes more.)

The American tax payer is already funding a public-medical system that exceeds the British NHS

For example, the average health care costs of an American individual are $7,000 dollars per year. Of that, private health insurance and out-of-pocket expenses cover just $4,000 of it. The rest is picked up by the tax-payer.

Compare that to Great Britain, where our (admittedly inferior) health care system spends just $3,000 a year on each individual (with people picking up about $500 out-of-pocket.)

What does that mean?

It means that the tax-payer burden of providing 'free' health care to every individual in Great Britain is actually LESS than the cost of providing 'privately funded' health care in America. What's even worse, is that on top of the American tax-payer paying more than enough to fund a system like the NHS, they're then asked to pay $4,000 on top.

They're basically paying for health care twice. And as good as the American health care system is, it's not that good.

I've argued before that 'socialized medicine' and universal health care already exist in America - but I can see that I grossly underestimated the problem. We, the health care consumer, are being fleeced - and Republicans who demonize so-called 'socialized health care' are unaware that they've been contributing to it for years now.

Obama's medical plan - not good enough for his own family?

Obama's controversial overhaul of the American health care system is infuriating both Republicans and health care industry moguls - leading one doctor to plant a poser on the president during an ABC News town hall event:

"Will you promise," the doctor demanded, "that your wife and daughters will only get the medical services covered by your new health insurance plan?"

"No," said Obama. "I'd always want them to get the very best care." Even if that meant buying a more expensive insurance program, or paying for non-covered services out of pocket.

Critics are highlighting this as an example of hypocrisy - a 'Dukakis moment' according to some. Obama's proposing a health care system that even he wouldn't entrust to cover all his family's medical needs.

But is that hypocritical? Or merely honest?

Obama's health care proposal offers some medical care for millions of uninsured people. It might not be comprehensive coverage - the 'best that money can buy' - but it is at least some coverage.

It hasn't been put in place to replace private medical insurance. It's been put there to supplement it - to offer the uninsured something, where they used to get nothing.

If Obama could find a way to offer medical coverage that was better than private health insurance, he wouldn't just be a miracle worker - he'd be the first man in history to make a nationalized health care system work!

[And yet, the Republicans would still attack him, for destroying the 'free market' private health care industry. You just can't win with them. - Editorial Bear.]

No, what he proposes isn't perfect. But perhaps it's the step in the right direction. And, more importantly, it's not like his Republican critics have managed to put forward anything better.

They criticize Obama for not entrusting his family's health to his new system. Perhaps the question should be reversed:

Would they show their 'faith' in the existing system by entrusting their family's health to the current options open for America's 46 million uninsured?

If the answer to that is 'no' (as it should be, for anybody who cares about their family's welfare) than they're the ones who the accusations of hypocrisy should be leveled at.

Some Thoughts about Universal Health Care

When it comes to the ongoing debate about American health care, I'm definitely in the privatised, American camp. I've seen the British version of 'universal health care' and it's not pretty.

So far, Tina and my experiences with the American health care system have been much more positive than what we experienced in England - even if they cost more.

Our experiences

Tina's expecting a baby - so that means plenty of visits to Robert Woods Johnson Hospital for scans, checkups and advice. After the contributions of my job's health insurance package, we've been left with about $1,000 to pay out of our own pockets.

In England, the NHS would not have charged us any money. However, the treatment we've received in America has been in a beautiful, clean, well-appointed new hospital with very modern equipment. We weren't left waiting for very long and the doctors and nurses have held our hand through the entire process.

At the Royal Hampshire Infirmary, in Winchester, we had a couple of terrible experiences, being expected to wait about four hours for treatment in a dirty hospital, with old equipment and a doctor who once gave Tina a potentially life-threatening misdiagnosis (delivered in a rude and offhand manner.)

Even worse, two new mothers from Winchester recently died from the same form of streptococcal infection they'd coincidentally picked up while in the maternity ward of the Royal Hampshire Infirmary.

Clearly, private health insurance offers us (Tina and myself) a much higher standard of health care that we could receive back home

The Downside of Private Health Care

That being said, Tina and I are in the enviable situation of having a good health care package and living close to an excellent hospital.

The reason health care is such an important issue in the upcoming presidential election is because almost 50 million Americans - close to 20% of the entire US population - have no health care coverage at all.

This is because private health care is rocketing in price - and many companies, like Wal-Mart, don't offer an adequate health care package even to full time employees.

Now, even if you're a stuffy old Tory, like me, you can't help but admit that this is wrong. Adequate health care is a basic human right. That shouldn't be a political issue for either the Democrats or Republicans. It's only the best means to accomplish this goal which should be up for discussion. In theory...

In theory.

Because currently, the debate's taken a rather surreal twist and more and more conservative Republicans are railing against any notion of 'universal health care' as proposed by Barack Obama, Senator Clinton or even their own candidate, John McCain.

In fact, in his daily radio show, conservative pundit Mark Levin often claims that Obama and Clinton are pitching a 'socialised' medical system along the same lines as Britain's National Health Service - and he enjoys using the dismal state of the NHS as an example of why it would never work.

But the problem with the conservative argument (as is increasingly common with any conservative argument is that it's utter rubbish.

American 'socialism.'

Pundits love to label the likes of Hillary Clinton as a 'socialist' or 'Marxist' when they have no real concept of the term. For a Brit - at least one who's lived long enough to remember the socialist Labor party (before Tony Blair came along) - the idea of calling Obama or Clinton a socialist is completely laughable.

Neither Democratic candidate wants to introduce a nationalised health service along the lines of the NHS. Instead, the 'universal health care' they're suggesting would simply mean that everybody in America (hence 'universal') would have access to affordable medical care (hence 'health care.')

For those in poverty, that could be some kind of system like Medicare or Medicaid. For low income families, it could be some form of subsidized or Federal health insurance.

Additionally, Obama, Clinton and McCain want the consumer cost of private medical insurance to be reduced by opening up competition - meaning consumers wouldn't be limited to the health insurance package their employer offers - and could seek more competitive quotes out-of-state.

Also, big companies like Wal-Mart would be forced to do what they should have done from the very beginning - offer their full-time employees adequate health care.

Whatever happens, the intended result of universal health care would be a system in which everybody in America has access to medical treatment. And apparently the conservative Republicans loath this idea!

Why?

The major argument conservatives have against any form of universal health care is that it would be tax-payer funded. They're worried that their hard-earned income would be taxed in order to pay for the health care of low income families (read: other people. Conservatives don't like giving money for the benefit of other people.)

There is a simple and indisputable reason why this argument is idiotic. America already has a system of 'universal health care' that's funded by the tax-payer (and subsidized by the health insurance consumer.)

Federal law forbids hospitals from turning away patients. If a visitor to a hospital doesn't have health insurance - or the means to pay their bills - it's the government or hospital that eventually has to pay up for that patient's treatment.

Which means the tax payer already pays $15 billion a year towards the health care of people without insurance. What's worse, hospitals and doctors cover the expense of 'writing off' uninsured patients by charging paying customers more - which in turn dramatically hikes up health insurance premiums.

So whether it's through tax-dollars or an increase in health insurance premiums, at the end of the day, the bad-tempered conservatives are already paying for other people's health care.

It seems stubborn and idiotic for them not to open their minds to a more efficient (i.e. cheaper) way of doing what they're already doing now.

The Simple Maths

Health insurance premiums have skyrocketed over the last few years - and one of the major reasons is because hospitals and doctors have needed to recoup their losses from treating uninsured patients.

Since about 20% of Americans have no health insurance - plus the millions of illegal immigrants and undocumented workers - the current situation works something like this:

Four people go to the hospital and have treatment that costs $300.

One of those four people has no health insurance. So to cover their costs, the hospital is forced to split that loss amongst the other three paying customers.

$300 ÷ 3 = $100 each added to their bill.

That bill ends up being $400 instead of $300. Basically, they're paying 25% more.

And it's a spiralling problem. As health insurance premiums increase, more and more people can't afford insurance, which means doctors and hospitals have to increase their costs to cover them.

That, in turn, increases insurance premiums again, which again means that more people 'drop out' of health insurance programs...

And do you see where I'm going with this?

Something needs to be done.

This situation needs to be addressed - and conservatives can't stick their head in the sand and pretend otherwise.

Currently, all three of the presidential candidates have interesting and promising solutions to the health care crisis.

Senator John McCain

John McCain's solution is within Republican party lines.

While he rejects any form of government funded or subsidized universal health care, he wants to offer a $5,000 tax rebate for families with private medical insurance (helping considerably towards the cost.)

In addition, he wants to reduce health insurance premiums by opening up competition between states. Currently, health insurance providers can operate in one state alone - meaning there are a limited number of suppliers in each state.

McCain's idea is to allow consumers to select insurance from companies based all across the United States, forcing suppliers to offer more affordable premiums.

In addition, Senator McCain wants to allow consumers to opt-out of their company's health-insurance package and take their employer's contribution elsewhere - again forcing health insurance companies to offer more competitive rates, rather than 'signing up' big businesses and forcing a big, fat premium out of every employee.

"In health care," John McCain explains, "I believe in enhancing the freedom of individuals to receive necessary and desired care."

Basically: We help those with the means to help themselves.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

Even though her opponents (like talk show host Mark Levin) accuse Hillary of being a socialist, the universal health care package she champions is very different from the National Health Service in England.

In fact, she spent [wasted - Editorial Bear] millions of dollars while her husband was in the White House investigating - and ultimately ruling out - a single-payer health care system like we have in Britain or Canada.

Clinton advocates government subsidies for low-income families, meaning that they will be able to afford health insurance.

She also wants to set up a federal health care system, which Americans can 'buy into' instead of their employer's health insurance package. This will force private health insurance companies to make their premiums more competitive and offer health care coverage to people with pre-existing conditions - people who would normally be refused private health insurance.

Because of the subsidies and the setting up of a federal health care system, Hillary Clinton's solution to America's health care crisis is the most expensive. However, with costs of $110 billion per year (in contrast, the war in Iraq costs $144 billion per year) this can be paid for by eliminating the controversial 'Bush tax cuts.')

However, it's the thought of killing this tax break which makes Hillary's plan so unpopular with the conservatives.

Clinton's election promise: "One of the goals that I will be presenting is health insurance for every child and universal health care for every American."

Senator Barack Obama

Obama similarly believes in real 'universal health care' and on the face of it, many of his ideas are similar to Hillary Clinton's.

Most importantly, the idea that every American should have access to affordable health insurance even if they have a pre-existing condition.

"I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country."

Critics of Obama have pointed out his lack of specific details when it comes to a proposed universal health care package - but it will still be rooted within the existing system of private health insurance providers (with some government intervention.)

Obama's plan will ultimately hope to reduce health care costs for all Americans, while providing low-income families or those with pre-existing conditions access to the medical care they are currently excluded from.

It's been a long time coming...

Whichever candidate ends up the White House, I'm confident that they will introduce improvements to the existing health care system and allow more people to have access to better care at a cheaper price.

One thing to note is that none of the candidates - not even Hillary Clinton - plans to eliminate the concept of private health insurance. They just want to regulate and streamline it.

Hopefully this means that the advantages of private medical insurance - driving the development of cutting-edge new technology and pharmaceuticals - will remain, while the disadvantages (the high insurance premiums and difficulty getting medical coverage for pre-existing conditions) will be addressed.

Having experienced both socialised and privatised heath care, I am convinced that the private system offers the consumer a better service. However, just like in any privatised industry, the demand to make money often threatens to overwhelm the mandate to provide a service.

I just hope that whichever presidential candidate makes it to the White House, they ensure that the patient always comes before the shareholder.