Sicko is a very good thing to suggest, but I also have another suggestion for people who think, like that caller, that the example of Sweden's health care is how it is all over Europe... It isn't. Every country seems to have a variation, some more socialized than another.

Frontline did a show on April 15th of 2008 and the reporter compared the health care systems of England, Japan, Germany, Taiwan and Switzerland.

Taiwan for instance tried to look at all the health care programs out there and decided to try and combine the best points of all of them out there:

"What is it? Taiwan adopted a "National Health Insurance" model in 1995 after studying other countries' systems. Like Japan and Germany, all citizens must have insurance, but there is only one, government-run insurer. Working people pay premiums split with their employers; others pay flat rates with government help; and some groups, like the poor and veterans, are fully subsidized. The resulting system is similar to Canada's -- and the U.S. Medicare program. (Percentage GDP spent on health care: 6.3)

"The Swiss system is social insurance like in Japan and Germany, voted in by a national referendum in 1994. Switzerland didn't have far to go to achieve universal coverage; 95 percent of the population already had voluntary insurance when the law was passed. All citizens are required to have coverage; those not covered were automatically assigned to a company. The government provides assistance to those who can't afford the premiums. (Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 11.6)

"Germany, like Japan, uses a social insurance model. In fact, Germany is the birthplace of social insurance, which dates back to Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. But unlike the Japanese, who get insurance from work or are assigned to a community fund, Germans are free to buy their insurance from one of more than 200 private, nonprofit "sickness funds." As in Japan, the poor receive public assistance to pay their premiums. (Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 10.7)

"Japan uses a "social insurance" system in which all citizens are required to have health insurance, either through their work or purchased from a nonprofit, community-based plan. Those who can't afford the premiums receive public assistance. Most health insurance is private; doctors and almost all hospitals are in the private sector. (Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 8)

"The British system is "socialized medicine" because the government both provides and pays for health care. Britons pay taxes for health care, and the government-run National Health Service (NHS) distributes those funds to health care providers. Hospital doctors are paid salaries. General practitioners (GPs), who run private practices, are paid based on the number of patients they see. A small number of specialists work outside the NHS and see private-pay patients. (Percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) spent on health care: 8.3)"

Usually, the only things you have to "wait for" in socialized systems are ELECTIVE procedures or surgery.

None of these systems are perfect, but all of them are better than ours. Frontline explains how these systems work and what their particular problems are here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

I hope Obama watches that Frontline special. I would love it if you would refer to it on your show too, because folks can watch it on line:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

And yes, I agree with Mike, we should nationalize the Auto Industries.

Joy in Santa Cruz
~~"Damned right (I'm an agitator). An agitator is the center pole in a washing machine.  It gets the dirt out! That's a good thing!"   Jim Hightower (paraphrased)

I read a story in The Canadian, a progressive newspaper, that reports that China is posed to buy GM and Chrysler. I will bet that any so-called industry gropu will be front front men for the Chinese government.

It is better that the American Peoples government buy the the two companies and hold shares in the names of all United States citizens. The current board and executives would be removed and a new board consisting of citizens, auto entrepreneurs, and government official vetted through Congress. The board would choose new executive leadership. The two companies would still be listed but with the stipulation that stock could not be sold or traded for 5 years. The company after 5 years could be sold to private American interests and then every citizen would receive real stock benefits. Dividends could be payed to every citizen when the company makes money.

Since every citizen would have a stake in the companies, they would have an incentive to purchase the products and make the companies profitable.

This ownership would preserve a major manufacturing base in the country.
Preserving this infrastructure is vital because once destroyed it cannot be reconstituted easily. The electronics industry, for example, will never return to the US--we would have to start from scratch, and that will no occur.

If China buys these companies, they pack up the plants and move them to China like they have done many times already.

If we want to become a Third World nation, then we should continue selling off our manufacturing base. Is that what we want? Congress needs to make sure that these companies survive into next year so we can then buy them for the People of the United States. The GOP can hardly object to this since they talk about the "ownweship society." All citizen would real stock interests in the companies.