I can remember back in 1969 or 1970 when relatives of a friend were upset that they had to pay $5.00 per month for their Health Care.
Other than that, they loved it.
Why is it that we can't have a system like their's? Is it the lobyist's, reps from the Doctor's union's, or what?
I went to an MRI clinic in Everett, WA. last year.
If I paid cash they would charge me $700.00.
If I went through an Insurance plan the charge would be $1200.00.
Something's very wrong with that way of thinking in my opinion.
Thank you for reporting on this issue. Had it not been for the generosity of Harborview's Charity Plan, my wife wouldn't have beat her lung disease and I wouldn't have been able to afford Chemo Therapy.Since then,Basic Health and Group Health's plan allowed me a hip replacement.
From 1994 until 2005 I was self employed but couldn't afford medical insurance.Barely am able now with SSDI.

There are questions about healthcare coverage that do not appear related to those without health care insurance. I believe that health care coverage questions should not include two words: affordable and insurance. All Americans should be given health care. With the use of the two unacceptable words above, future recipients can decide they will not need healthcare or need to afford their childrens education or food first. Then, if severe injury or illness occurs next week, they are without coverage and the financial coverage will depend on us taxpayers. Lets get a program that will provide all Americans with healthcare! And we need to get the insurance executives away from standing between patients and their doctors!

It's odd to me that you had several people interviewd for this story, but NONE of them were against universal health care. Why? There's a huge number of people out there against it.

All Americans SHOULD NOT be "given" health care. No one has a right to be "given" anything. Our government exists -- as July 4th should have reminded us -- to secure our individual rights, not to TAKE AWAY our rights by forcing us to give our property to others.

We do need to find ways to cut costs. And everyone agrees with that. Most people even agree with many of the ways we should cut costs (including tort reform, use of local clinics instead of full-service doctor's offices for most ailments, drug patent reform, increase competition, and so on). So why not focus on that first?

The reason is obvious and sad: if the left worked to cut costs independent of creating new government programs, then the "crisis" would seem less urgent and there'd be less support for their socialization plans.

Somehow I can't imagine the government can run health care for it's citizens any better than it can run medicare (which is about bankrupt now). What would make Obama's healthcare plan any different???

i agree with Dr. Stark on the concept of carrying catastrophic coverage and using savings to pay for health maintenance. the weak point is it requires "personal responsibility" on the part of citizens. to enforce that some sort of penalty has to be in place for those who do not practice responsible health care.

We should be able to dialog about facts and honest statistics in healthcare without buckling to misinformation and GOP talking points.

One fact is not being talked about by anyone. Other industrialized countries are paying half the price we pay in America for the same coverage.
In 2003, the average per capita cost in the US was found to be an average of $5,711. Everyone else--some 20 other countries--pay much less than we do.

No one knows this and no one is asking why. Japan's per capita medical costs are only $2249. Japan has the latest technology and orders all kinds of medical tests for its population.

Government-run services such as police and fire departments, the VA Hospital system and Medicare seem to work fine. Medicare runs its programs with only a 3 or 4 percent overhead. There's nothing inefficient about it.

Players like Dr.Stark continually assert that they are for reform, but their true agenda is to keep corporate insurance companies between ourselves and our doctors and the smart, efficient medical care that we should all be entitled to. There's your "rationing" right there.

But by a manufactured consensus, the public is never told that other nations are spending half as much as America does for the same level of care. And trust me, the public does not know because no one is stating the obvious. For some reason, the truth is not allowed.

Canada spent half as much for health care in 2003 than America did. There are no waits any longer than waiting times over here--for doctors' appointments or waiting for surgery. But don't expect our media to tell us.

Until we understand the sheer absurdity of current arrangements and the tired old arguments that were used against universal insurance under Clinton, the public will never get really angry.

America will never develop the type of progressive horizon which could lead to actual reform—let alone to an actual “overhaul.”

I was extremely disappointed with this one-sided perspective on Health Care Reform. The "Doctor" was mimicking the industry talking points.

My family currently has a Health Savings Account and associated catastrophic care insurance. We chose this plan as it is the most economical in terms of premiums, yet can be very expensive if you have a medical condition. Last year our expenses for medical treatment was over $16,000.

I laugh when I hear that the free market offerings provide more choice. Once a preexisting condition exists, you no longer have choice. You stay with your current provider or must wait for one year or more under a new plan with no coverage for the condition. Transparency is a word that is also thrown about, however, the rules are so complex (even for my analytical mind) it is very difficult to understand the implications or predict all the possible medical scenarios. There were limits to my coverage that I could not have anticipated (i.e. an emergency while out of state.) that were not covered.

I also often hear the opposition's argument framed as a 'government takeover' of health care. I would rather have a government administered system (i.e. Medicare) than a corporate bureaucrat who is responding to the profit margin and Wall Street ahead of the insured person's well-being.

It's OK for King5 Up Front to put on Dr. Stark to have him espouse his libertarian, get-government-out-of-our-lives point of view. That's fine with me (despite the fact he didn't give one sad example of HOW his for-profit healthcare system would end up being better for consumers). I paid attention to the man because I knew that there would be someone else on immediately following him to give another point of view. Wouldn't there be? WFT??? Jeez King5, what kind of journalism is that?
At least put someone on who can point out that it's grossly obvious that America's Health "Care" system is not that at all. It is a hugely profitable, endless cash cow that a very protective industry will fight, lobby and lie through their teeth to protect. In my opinion, 'health care' and 'privately run' (read 'for profit') are two terms which should not exist together in the same sentence.

I caught the last portion of Dr. Stark's presentation of one side of the health care debate. Where were the opposing views? Where was the balance in his diatribe of the virtues of "the Free Market"? I was very disappointed that no questions or challenges to his positions were asked by the host. Does KING 5 not realize that true journalism involves making someone actually defend their point of view with inquiry? Otherwise, you are just engaging in propaganda and stenography.

Shame on you, KING 5. This issue is extremely important to all Americans, not just wealthy doctors like your guest, who can probably well afford any health care he needs. We need balanced debate and actual information to make informed decisions.

Oh, and Dr. Stark, Americans might be "the world's greatest consumers" as you said, but buying health care isn't like going to Wal Mart and buying a plastic shoe box.

Face it, Government run programs are inefficient and ALWAYS over budget!
Our VA care is "bad" (I'll be kind), we treat Native Americans like dung in their health care, and Medicare is going to go broke MUCH sooner the Social Security. Need any more proof? Just look at the federal debt!!!
I know what it is like to have some Government bean counter making choices about my health care, trust you do NOT what to experience that. At least with a private insurance carrier you can protest the decision; try that with a Government program and see what you get.
Americans are spoiled and getting lazy. If not, this discussion would not even be happening.
Even if you disagree with the above facts, try explaining this to me.
If you increase demand by 20%, cut expenditures, and do not increase supply, what do you expect to happen? Its called a diaster!!! That is what Government health care will produce. But our corrupt politicans are more worried about political paybacks than working, legal Americans.

I stuck with the catastrophic health plan that Dr. Stark advocates for several years until I realized that I was paying $2400 for about $350 worth of care and if I ever got sick I'd go bankrupt before I could meet my deductible. GREAT plan.
These plans are meant to maximize profits and pass the cost of health care on to the consumer. I'm so disappointed that Up Front chose only to present this corporate-centric point of view to its audience. The fact is, if you get sick, you do not have the time, energy or money to shop around for the cheapest or best health care. I'm supposed to argue with my doctor over what tests I need?
The whole thing is BS and I'm tired of politicians and the media parroting these corporate talking points to scare people away from what will be best for them in the name of Wall Street profits. Single-payer health care works WELL and cheaply all over the world. If people are too stupid to see that then I guess we'll get what we deserve, which is nothing.
I won't be watching Up Front again.

It's all about money. The industry puts Profits Before Patients, and is desperate to keep it that way.

For the facts, you should see Wendell Potter's congressional testimony or Bill Moyer's Journal at http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/profile.html

Amber-- I think you missed the previous week's show when two advocates of a government insurance option were on.

The bean-counters of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects runaway debt. http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=328

Obama and his congress are Reckless to be putting forward such radical programs during this volatile time in this nation's history. ...so reckless that this nation may well become history.

Can King 5 investigate the following statement:

The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) is a helping hand and lifeline for one out of every three Washington residents.

http://www1.dshs.wa.gov/geninfo/aboutdshs/

I don't believe this to be true. It measn one in three Washingtonian is on welfare??? It is impossible. How did they come to this conclusion? It must be some tricky accounting.

I can not understand how anyone, no matter what their political beliefs are, can support a government run health care plan. Anything the government touches they screw up. Those idiots in Washington, DC, none of whom, I am proud to say, I have ever voted for and never will, can't even manage the government, so how do they expect to manage our health care? Look at their clunker program. Shouldn't that tell us something? Anyone who believes the government can run our health care system clearly has an IQ that can be counted on one hand with four fingers and a thumb left over.

Seattle needs to get there heads out of their bags.