I'm a nurse for over 20 years & have seen all exploits by hospitals, drug companies and doctors. Yes, we need prevention, but we also have patients with severe chronic illness and sudden onset of injuries. I have traveled through out the world and I'm all for a Universal plan. At the very least, a good government plan OPTION. I'm thrilled for those lucky to have a good medical plan, but for most people, they have no options.

WAKE UP PEOPLE!

Exactly Folks, the Obama proposal is an OPTION for all - not just our legislative, judicial and administrative leaders.

Blue Cross (CA) will "rescind" your insurance at the first sneeze, so yes we need a fix. As vertical growth and consolidation have completely erased any hopes of a competitive market, it's time to bring in a new option for us all.

No, Rick, you are very wrong. Obama's plan is NOT an option for all. Haven't you been paying attention? Obama and Congress keep dropping the amount of income that a family will be able to make and still be eligible for coverage through a government sponsored plan because there just isn't enough money.

Obama's plan is "coverage for a few" at the expense of the many (read "middle class taxpayers and Medicare recipients.")

As studies shown, Preventive health care never really works on a cost benefit analysis though it sounds like the right common sense approach. This actually takes us back to individual responsibility.

Health care is a privilege. It's not a right. Note the difference. You cannot force government to grant a privilege to the masses. We do not elect Government to do such a thing in this country.

arrayray, do you have that privelage?

People don't have a "right to life"? I'm pretty sure the Constitution says we have a right to "life, liberty, and property". If someone dies of cancer because they didn't have health insurance and health care that could have treated them, so much for their "right to life". Health care is one of the rare few things that are a right rather than a privilege, at least according to the Constitution

At 15% of GDP we already spend like we have a universal coverage plan. Do some research people. Once the insurance companies are removed from the equation, the cost of healthcare drops dramatically while still maintaining high salaries for healthcare providers. Don't listen to the rhetoric the insurance companies are spewing. Ask yourself... why is Congress having such a hard time with this??? Because they are being pressured by the insurance companies that have them in the back of their pockets. It's time we caught up with the rest of the world.

Health care is not a right and it is not the same thing as life. If, for a moment, we assume that health care is a right, then what is to prevent anyone (liberals especially) from claiming food, housing, and clothing to be a right as well. (After that it would be flat panel TVs, a Lexus, and vacations in the Bahamas.) After all, we depend on these things to keep us alive too. So the taxpayers will then be providing not only health care but every other necessity as well. That will give some people cause to think, "Why work? The government provides all I need so I can just sit here on my butt and watch all these suckers go to work."

Health care IS a commodity, just like food, housing and clothing. As such, it is an individual choice to do whatever it takes (like get a job, start a business) to obtain these life sustaining commodities...or not.

I'm against a system that requires taxpayers to foot the bill for people who continually do things that cause injury to themselves that then "requires" medical treatment for which they cannot pay; also for people whose earnings are sufficient to provide health care, but spend it on other, non-critical things. Addicts of all stripes fall into these categories, as do self-mutilators, depressed suicidals, and people who are undisciplined with their resouces.

I can see providing a safety net for the people who suffer one such indiscretion (we all make mistakes), but after the first rescue, if they repeat, let them suffer the consequences. I'm pretty sure that if we had such a system today, where hospitals were not forced to provide treatment for which the patient has no means to pay, the cost of health care would be significantly less than it is today because these moochers would either begin making decisions that promote their health or they would die.

This might sound rather Spartan, but if we don't at least lean in this direction, that of requiring some degree of individual responsibility, if instead, we attempt to carry the medical cost of society's leaches, sooner or later the weight will be far more than the system can bear. To borrow a word from our president, such a system would be "unsustainable." It will come crashing down. The suffering then will be far greater than if we permit the process of natural selection to cull our numbers.

You are clueless about the real world!!!!

If healthcare is a right and the taxpayers are footing the bill then as a middle class taxpayer, I should have the right to impose restrictions on access to fast food, tobacco and other smokable plants, unprotected sex, alcohol and whatever else I deem "unhealthy" such as limiting the time the public can sit and watch tv or twitter.

So jennilynn, whose clueless now?

If persons choose to partake in "questionable" activity or fail to lose those extra pounds, I would like my money back!

Health care is not a right and it is not the same thing as life.

Your kidding right? You know that 20,000 die every year because they have no health care? Health care is life.

Health care IS a commodity, just like food, housing and clothing

COMMODITY? Food, housing and clothing are necessities. Can you live without food like you can without health care? Try not eating, living on the street while being naked for 3 months. Then come back and make some sense.

I'm against a system that requires taxpayers to foot the bill for people who continually do things that cause injury to themselves that then "requires" medical treatment for which they cannot pay; also for people whose earnings are sufficient to provide health care, but spend it on other, non-critical things

So the deaths of ten of thousands are okay? Go tell a family who has to raise a child with leukaemia that their kid does not deserve health insurance because of a previous condition. Really, do it.

I can see providing a safety net for the people who suffer one such indiscretion (we all make mistakes), but after the first rescue, if they repeat, let them suffer the consequences.

Prescription drug addiction are not a "one indiscretion" addiction. They need much counseling and medical treatment.

This might sound rather Spartan, but if we don't at least lean in this direction, that of requiring some degree of individual responsibility, if instead, we attempt to carry the medical cost of society's leaches, sooner or later the weight will be far more than the system can bear.

Sounds like Darwin. Survival of the fittest. Or in you case- "survival of the richest, poor people can die".

The suffering then will be far greater than if we permit the process of natural selection to cull our numbers.

Natural selection? Now, that is Darwin. To simplify your statement. The death of the innocent will help the Homeland!

Arrayray,

I don't know where you were last November, but that is just what we voted for. And 3/4 of the population are calling for a public option. It is amazing how you and the congress seem to miss this point. You should go back to that dream world you lived in and let the rest of us pursue the changes we voted for. Just a reminder you lost last November.

We need a complete overhaul of our attitude toward basic human needs. We need this to stop wasting the talent of people suffering from illness, hunger, and poverty. A person that is hungry and ill can not contribute to their fullest and this is a loss we can not afford any longer. Especially when it is done to obscenely benefit the few and priveldged.

Private insurance should be changed to not for profit. The idea of making a profit by denying coverage to the sick in the hopes that they will die before collecting on those benefits is immoral and should be illegal. The BOD and top executives of the insurance companies should be tried for murder for profit. They have done no less in denying coverage to cancer, cardiac, and other patients.

I say lets get our pitchforks and take to the streets. Forget about the government. There's about a dozen corporations that tell us who are leaders will be, what we are going to eat and drink, how sick we will get and how much of our income they will receive. You may think you have choices, but you don't.

People don't have a "right to life"? I'm pretty sure the Constitution says we have a right to "life, liberty, and property". If someone dies of cancer because they didn't have health insurance and health care that could have treated them, so much for their "right to life". Health care is one of the rare few things that are a right rather than a privilege, at least according to the Constitution

*****************************************************************

Are you talking about the US Constitution? I've read the document myself several times. I don't see health care, life, liberty or property mentioned as rights. Was an amendment enacted that was not reported on? Anyone have any info on this?

incognito when you quote the Constitution use your quote in context... No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. the key word and or phrase here is "DUE PROCESS"

Where have you been the last 15 years? Private health care insurance costs have increased far in excess of inflation. Private insurers are out of control. The public option with health care for all is the best option. Private insurers have fail everyone but them selves.

Private industry is only after profit for the share-holders of the company.

Health care needs to be about healing people, and only about health.

Gerry, me thinks you have it backwards. Private Industry can't compete with the government when it comes to health insurance. Market competition will never yield an option costing less than 10 times as much as the government can provide. Our only other option is to pool our own resources and provide ourselves with insurance. That's how health insurance started to begin with, private groups pooled their resources to protect themselves.

IMO, the idea that certain private investors should be able to pocket 30% of all health care dollars spent without contributing in any way to providing health care is obscene.

I would prefer to spend 2% for administrative costs and the apply money that would have been someone else's profit to real health care costs. I would also prefer to be represented as a larger group of consumers when negotiating fees and charges with my health care providers.

I have heard a lot of talk lately about the cost of "defensive medicine". Has anyone seen any statistics about these costs? I have seen documentation on the huge costs of doctors ordering unnecessary procedures for profit. My acceptance of physicians claims that their patients were subjected to unnecessary procedures because they were worried about frivolous lawsuits requires some evidence to support these claims.

Malpractice awards have been capped. Insurance rates in effected markets continued to climb at alarming rates.

Negotiating fair prices will meet even more resistance than government health insurance. The last thing providers of any goods or services want is to have consumers bargain collectively.

If you look at the various numbers on how much these companies pay for Lobbying, perks, ads, Hospitals & Dr wooing that includes flying the Dr./ admin to an all expense paid trip, bonuses that is higher than salary and dividends- You'll find that they spend more on that than they do on on what they claim they are about (research and development and manufacturing of drugs) and (research and upgrading equipment.) On top of that, way too many high dollar malpractice suits that targets everyone from hospital down to the personals that weren't treating the patient. (don't get me wrong.. death/ maiming deserves to be taken care of but I'm talking 100 million for non-life threatening/ maiming stuff)

Just like the CEOs in major banks - they have abused their power and greed is running rampant in those halls. They don't care about us as individuals.. they see money even from the working poor and they let you know that if you can't afford it despite working hard.. you are worthless to them as a whole. There are still good Drs and Nurses that are trying hard to get patients what they need but they still have their hands tied.

I'm not sure of socializing is the answer but I think regulating it might be best... jump down these greedy jerks for placing their bonus yacht over allowing someone a treatment to save their lives. Can you imagine how many lives can be saved without a patient having to mortgage their house if the BILLION dollar for lobbying was placed back into the system? All I know is something must be done and done differently because people are suffering and we call ourselves the best country in the World.

oh here is a very interesting read.. might be long but they are informative. www.NCHC.org/facts/cost.shtml and www.PLoSMedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050001 (The cost of pushing pills)

That is the bill of goods that the private insurers have managed to sell to us all for decades now. The truth is just as the geniuses on wall street managed to run our finances into the ground while telling us that any government interference would crash the system, the health insurance companies have run the health care system into the ground while doing very well for themselves.

I say the Government should not only compete with the Insurance Companies. It should help set up leaner hungrier clinics and hospitals to make these bloated, self serving, megalomaniacal hospital systems to, once again recognize that their primary goal is to provide healthcare. These institutions currently have more bean counters and paper pushers in the system than they have doctors, nurses and other actual healthcare providers.

Fixing the coverage without also fixing the delivery system would be like taking care of a termite infestation by simply purchasing more homeowner's coverage.

Don't get me started!

John

Well stated!

Gerry is right on about tort reform. I know about a OB-GYN that was retiring from the military and wanted to open a practice in Florida. He had 20 years experience and not one malpractice suite filed against him. He found out that malpractice insurance was going to cost him $250,000 per year.

And for all of you that want universal health care like Canada and England, are you ready to cough up 10% of your gross income? You make 100k a year, your "Free" government health care will only cost you $10,000 per year. That's what they pay in other countries. 

The problem with saying that health care is a commoditity is that people do not act rationally when they have to make health care decisions. If you can, imagine what is was like when a close relative was in the hospital. Were you thinking "wow if i go with the amp/sulbactam it will save me 5% over the piperacillin and might work almost as well." In these situatuions saying that the consumer will drive down costs makes no sense, the avg person will do what the doctor recommends or will do what ever it takes to prevent loss and will rarely choose the cheap option.

Also why do we feel it neccessary to provide airline/corn subsidies and not bat an eye but as soon as we want to do something that will help the average american we have a temper tantrum.

Same old story from the losers. Cry term limits whenever you're out of power. I never hear that from Dems, or you for that matter, when the Republicans are on power not matter how sorry they are.

We will always have idiots like you in the world. Self-centered!

I agree, we don't need term limits at all, just regular psych evaluations and fMRI brain scans to weed out the wing-nuts.

Actually, Dan, even that is off the mark. If the people of a constituency feel they are best represented by a wing nut, then that is their right to vote them in. Term limits are a bad idea because it takes the decision away from the voters. They are only a lazy way to deal with an apathetic constituency.

Now then, Ken, in this country we are the government, unlike places like Iran where the theocracy hold a firm grip, despite the final outcome of the election. I really wish everyone would stop talking about the government as though it is some alien presence imposed upon us. I don't deny your right to criticize the decisions made by us, but please don't perpetuate the right-wing myth of government.

If government control is so bad, why do we spend billions and billions of dollars on the government-run military? Why do we rely on government control to pave our roads, build our bridges, clean our water, educate our children, police our neighborhoods, etc.? It's because some things in life are fundamental and it is best to leave such things to the public sector. Basic (i.e. non-elective) health care is one of those things. So many other countries in the world have already figure this out; it's amazing it's taking us so long to catch up.

Hey Ken.... GROW UP!!! Your statement, " Government please govern and stay out of trying to run our lives Haven't we had enough of government. " indicates that you do not live in the real world, under a system of Laws, Statutes, and Codes, within alll aspects of daily life. These are to create a safe, and healthy enviroment for all. Now, if you were to make that statement about Corporate America staying out of government, I would definately agree with you. Yes, government is the only entity that can provide healthcare on the scale needed for this country. Healthcare is the No. 1 priority, and not bailing out Banks, Insurance Companies, or the AMA, who deny lifesaving treatment for profits. The military should be funded by those that believe it is necessary, and not by our tax dollars without full disclosure on spending, and oversight.

Sharon,

Doctors' incomes have nothing to do with the high cost of health care in the US. In fact, their incomes account for only 6.7% of health care spending. This is easily shown by simple math: there are approximately 800,000 doctors in the US making an average salary of $200,000. In total, their compensation is $160 Billion. This is out of $2.4 Trillion in total annual US health care costs. Hence, 6.7%. Cutting physician incomes will not solve this problem and will only serve to demoralize them further.

Sharon,

I think you are very accurate with your view. According to the feed that I was reading, the average income for a GP was $190,000. From there the averages go up for the specialists. I think I recall a group of specialists averaging $435,000. I am a social worker. I have 16 plus years of education and my yearly salary is less than $30,000. I work in the Social Services field because I like the work. Am I any less of a professional than the GP who makes $190,000 per year? I don't think so! I should be able to go to a physician's office and get the required service that I need and pay for it as I would any other service that I need. The AMA and the insurance companies have taken us to the extravagance and unaccessibility that we currently incurr.

Montana Mike, nothing personal, but you think you as a social worker have anywhere near the education level of a physician??? That is actually quite amusing. A social worker, even with 25 years of education (and I understand that yours is 16+), has nothing on what a physician has to go through, I am sorry. In fact, it's a laughable comparison (and no, I am NOT a doctor, I am a teacher).

I agree that for-profit healthcare is the heart of the problem. I don't know of any health care providers or hospitals in my area that willingly provide services to those who cannot afford to pay for them. Our for-profit hospitals will admit un-insured emergency cases, then dump them as soon as possible. Or try to go after everything they own to pay for the outlandish bills. $30,000/night for a stay in the hospital! Come on!--who has ever received enough care to justify that kind of bill? We all know that if the patient is insured with BC/BS, the hospitals and other health care providers will accept a fraction of the original bill as payment. If not insured -- the patient apparently deserves rip-off prices.

To be frank, my husband and I have so-called excellent insurance coverage through his employer. My husband's medical condition requires many visits to various physicians. Most of those physicians take advantage of his insurance and have him on a regimen of scans and drugs that do nothing to help his underlying condition, but ensure more income for them. I'm frustrated that he is being taken advantage of. And I know that if we lost his insurance, we would not be able to afford to pay for it ourselves. And instead of being flooded with un-necessary medical extras, we would then be unable to get the essential treatment he needs.

I would love to have a government-sponsored health care system that would allow those with pre-existing medical conditions to have affordable access to medical services. And I would love to do away with the greed that is the backbone of our present healthcare system. I think that wise restrictions on care in certain circumstances is an acceptable price to pay for health care that is available to everyone. If we did away with the profit-motive in healthcare, I think that healthcare providers would suddenly be a lot wiser in their recomendations of tests, scans, drugs, etc.

Montana Mike I assume you are including elementary through 12th grade in that figure right? I went to 12 years general education, 4 years of college, 4 years of medical school and still have 4 years of residency left. So I will have 24 years education when I am done. Oh and I assume you don't have $350,000. in debt for becoming a social worker either. My loans will cost over 4k per month.

Remember back then they did not have to employ a dozen people to file claims with insurance companies/Medicare/Medicaid etc. So yes the cost of doing business has increased. Oh and I forgot the Malpractice coverage. So no, doctors for the most part are not greedier, it just costs more to "get out the care". And they work hard so why can't they have the American dream. (Electricians can have nice houses too)

I'm an ex Canadian citizen who moved to the US at 19 and am now a naturalized US citizen. As a young person I remember the Canadian system working well, but that was at a different time with simpler less costly care (1960s to 1973). That system is now a house of horrors, and the US will end up the same if we adopt the Canadian or UK system. I know, I just came back from visiting my mom in Brampton, Ontario, near Toronto where I grew up. She is near death, a twisted body in constant pain due to that heartless system and it's arbitrary rationing and low quality of care.

I watched for twenty years as my family members received worse and worse care as the system got into more and more trouble. Hardest of all to understand is the immense wasting of money due to misallocation of resources, waste on a scale that no insurance company profit could compare to. In Brampton they have built, at immense expense, a huge new hospital. When I visited my mom there earlier this year I could not believe it when I saw that it was over 50% empty, due to the fact that the gov't decided that they could not afford to staff this palace now that it was built. There was hallway after hallway of empty rooms, while my mom had to be on a waiting list to get in.

For those of you who say that we need a system like Canada or the US I have only this to say: Please keep your ignorant and uninformed opinions to yourself, and please don't visit on us the same misery that I've seen up close for so long.

Wow, what Canada are you referring to?  Canada, Nigeria perhaps? Not the one that sits north of the U.S. that's for sure.  I am a Canadian, and my partner had kidney cancer. My sister, who lives in the United States also was diagnosed with kidney cancer.  My partner had a waiting time of 1 month for surgery; my sister had a waiting time of 6 weeks in the U.S.  So the waiting time for surgery was approximately the same.  My partner's care included home health care for approximately a month after surgery several days a week.  My sister did not receive any in home aide.  My partner didn't have to pay a dime for health care, my sister shelled out over 2k in deductibles...and you say Canada's health care system sucks?  Give me a break.  I will take the Canadian sytem over the present U.S. system any day! 

I am a 58-year-old divorced professional woman who has raised five children, and never been on any kind of welfare.  I have worked full-time since I was 14.  My gross monthly income is about $3,200.  My take-home pay, after all deductions, is $2,400 per month.  My mortgages (I have two, totaling $121,000 on a house that on which I have lost over $20,000 in equity over the past year, so that I am now "upside down" on my equity) total $1,150 per month.  I am paying off student loans (I went back to school at age 48 to obtain my BS degree) to the tune of $400 per month.  I also have the usual complement of utility bills and a couple of credit cards (used mainly for auto repair expenses on my 1992 Mitsubishi Expo, since it now has over 182,000 miles on it).  I do not have cable t.v., a big-screen t.v., or a Lexus, nor do I desire them.  Oh, yes, I am also currently paying off previous medical bills, not covered by my insurance (Blue Shield of Idaho), to the tune of $50 per month, for the next two years.

My insurance pays for no preventive procedures at all.  It did not cover one penny of my last mammogram (my aunt and my mother both died of cancer), nor did it pay for the follow-up diagnistic exam. when the mammogram was abnormal.  The follow-up showed no malignancy, thank God.  But I skipped the highly recommended annual repeat mammogram this year, because I was still paying off the one from the year before!  So if a lump gets big enough for me to feel it during a manual exam, maybe I will be lucky and catch it before it metastasizes and kills me, after I am forced to go bankrupt trying to save my skin, after it took too long to catch.  See, folks, all the fancy high tech medical equipment in the world is useless to those of us unfortunate enough not to have the money to access it!!

What I DO have, however, is polycystic kidney disease.  My kidney function is currently at 23%.  I will have to begin dialysis when it get down to 20%, which will be within the next year.  PKD is an inherited, progressive, incurable disease.  The only effective "treatment" is kidney transplant.  I did not "CHOOSE" to be born with this condition.  Nothing I did or did not do in the way of diet and life choices would have made one iota of difference in the outcome of this very common disease.

I am already unable to pay for the care recommended by my nephrologist.  I pay half my medical insurance premiums, and my employer pays the other half.  I pay over $250 per month.  That amounts to $3,000 per year.  In addition, I pay a $1,000 decuctible, a $45 per visit co-pay for visits to the nephrologist, and a 20% co-pay after the decudtible is met.  My nephrologist reccomends that I have about $1,200 worth of labs performed PER MONTH, which after my deductible is met will still cost me over $200 per month.  So I just don't get them done.  Therefore, if my kidney function suddenly goes down drastically over a month (not an unusual occurence, with PKD at this stage of the disease), I won't know in time to prevent severe damage to my other organs, and I may die.  In any event, I will end up in the emergency room.  What else can I do?  I simply do not have the money to pay for the treatment.

Having raised my five daughters entirely with funds of my own earning, on a high school diploma, I have no savings and no 401K.  My retirement plan is to steal a shopping cart for my tent, and hit the road.  I am only partly joking.

When I start dialysis, I will be forced to sell my house (and will still owe about $20,000 to the mortgage bankers after I do so, through no fault of my own.  When I took out that second mortgage, partly to pay medical bills, I still had over $20,000 in equity in my home as a buffer against emergencies.  Who is to blame for THAT small personal disaster?  Not me.) and get on disability. 

Do you folks know anything at all about the costs of dialysis?  Even if I do peritoneal dialsys, which can be done at home, I will need skilled nursing supervision, supplies, medications--to the tune of about $14,000 per month!  If I am able to continue working, which I hope to do (I am a behavior therapist, working with young children with autism), I may be able to maintain my health insurance.  If not, then what?  You got it:  Socialized medicine.  Medicaid.

Please tell me how I could possibly be financially hurt by having access to a system of "socialized" medicine?  An additional tax of 10% of my gross income would only be about $3,200.  I would save nearly that much just in my insurance premiums alone!  And so would my employer, by the way.

Absolutely correct, SMilwaukee!!
Drugs and operations are all too easily given just for asking. Also, what is covered is another huge issue...i.e. I personally know 4 people who've had a gastric bipass to lose weight and 3 have had it twice. A year later they weigh as much or more that they did originally and the surgery is a few thousand dollars (two on Medicaid). Almost all insurances now cover it, however they don't cover a $400 shot with follow up medication to help people quit smoking!!! It's ridiculous!!! The insurance companies are the ones that need to be brought under control with their waste, denials, and never ending paperwork while they bask in profits!!!

If they cover it at all. My husband and several guys at his work has tried to quit smoking but theirinsurance won't even cover the smallest amount to help them. Yes, their employer choose not to have that on their benefit coverage but why is it a choice? Esp when there are histories of emphysema and lung cancer in some of their families. Go figure? Those cost more than cession aids/ meds.

S Milwaukee Well spoken and absolutely correct.

Your correct. Here's something to think about, during the 70s doctors gave out so many methamphetamines that if you spread them out t every man, woman, and child. They would all get 40 pills. This country hands out addictive drugs like their candy.

Very well put!

Spoken like someone that has never worked for the government!

Todd Bailey wrote:

Obama's plan i.e.-you're having chest pains, you go to the emergency, lots of people are there before you, you have to wait your turn, you have a full blown heart attack and die before you get seen.

Where do you get your information? Explain WHY Obama's plan would result in the situation you stated. Explain HOW hospitals are going to lose money....seriously, I'm curious.

Todd: Why in he*l should a doctor need an incentive???? Excuse me!!!!

Yes Todd, Why would a Dr need any more incentive that the fact that he chose to be a Doctor???? As a receptionist, I don't need any more incentive than having a job to answer the phone.

You are just a number now !  It won't change things a bit as far as that is concerned.

Oh give me a break! More scare tatics. Many health care proffessionals support public healthcare.

So you are sitting in emergency and die ha?

This is much more likely. You dont have insurance so you sit at home thinking you are having a heart attack and wont go to the hospitol soon enough because you cant pay. So you die right there.

You cant pay for your insulin so you do without and die, or get so sick that they have to treat you. They dont get paid because you cant pay. You end up in bankruptsy so others dont get paid either. The list goes on and on simply because you could not buy the meds to stay healthy.

I really cant stand any more scare tatics. I dont buy them anymore!

Todd, The balancing act that occurs in your scenario is that people wait.. through holiday weekends and planned vacations before they address a problem, such as chest pain. When it gets bad enough they and their 300 pound torso hightail it to the nearest emergency room. These same people change the oil in their car more diligently than seeing their primary care nurse practitioner or doctor! I don't agree that a healthcare system such as Canada won't work. Have you been in Canada? Or is this just something that you assume because you heard about it. Get a brain and then use it.

I almost got to the bottom of the page before someone got to blame the usual suspects!!!

This is not an illigal immigrant situation, this is about the greatest contradiction in the richest society of the world

You may not think that the current health care proposals being floated by the President and most of the congress will be impacted by illegals streaming over our border but you are dead wrong. You need to get up to speed by reading them. In fact if you just listen to the president talk you will understand we are telling the truth. This debate was going on long before the current economic downturn. If these proposals were only being driven by a short term event like a recession then the proposals would make even less sense. Not having health insurance doesn't preclude you from getting health care it just determines who pays for it.

Ascuse me!? But if 50,000,000 people who don't have medical coverage and are not getting medical treatment because they don't have medical coverage, all of a sudden have medical coverage and start getting medical treatment because they now have medical coverage...won't that have at least some impact on availability? 50,000,000 more people is a pretty big hit on any system.

So esplane that to me. And do is simply and directly and logically because I'm only 4 years old.

I have never seen any support for the claims being made by the Right that there are only 12m legitimately uninsured Americans. Evidence? Also our current Medicaid system encourages Emergency Room use by indigents (legal and illegal) by asking for zero co-pay for the ER and $3 for the doctor. Let me see, free at the ER or $3 at the doctor where would I go if indigent? There should be a co-pay above the office visit for the ER to disincentivize using the ER as an office visit.

Becky, I agree mainly with your, "Not counting illegals aliens, there are only about 12M uninsured citizens; insuring them shouldn't cost $1 trillion! NO MORE H'CARE FOR ILLEGALS: NADA,NO MAS, ZERO, ZILCH, NOT ONE MORE DIME! I've been a taxpayer for 50 years, and I don't have health insurance. When I get sick, I pay for my care. I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT BE FORCED TO BUY ANY TYPE OF HEALTH INSURANCE FROM THE GOVERNMENT OR ANYONE ELSE because the government will JUST use MY money to take care of illegals. That tax care bill "for the children?" Well, that's primarily being spent to cover the children of illegal aliens. SCREW THEM."

However, there should be national government sponsored and paid healthcare for USA citizens. "Illegal", means not legal. Why are these criminals so protected from the laws of this country. Sorry, but if you violate the law, then there should be consequences, or maybe we should all violate any law we choose without any consequences. Also, why do we pay to teach English to illegals, and we charge USA citizens to learn their language?

Socialized police, fire, and education already.

Or would you prefer insurance companies sell you fire & police coverage, and you show proof of coverage before they can give aid?

Welfare is for people who don't work. You can't even receive welfare (at least the cash benefit kind) if you have a job. The majority of uninsured Americans are hard working people who don't get it through work and can't afford the independent plans. Big difference.

Anyone jump in and correct me or provide guidance, but I percieve a qualitative difference between police, fire and educational services as opposed to socialized health care. It's as though health care is more of a personal service, though there are distributed costs associated with people who are not healthy (outside of having to pay for their care if they can't or don't have insurance). I'm not sure there are distributed benefits for people who are healthy.

With police, fire and education, though there are benefits that accrue to individuals, the most significant benefit appears to be to communities and to society in general.

IF (big if here) what I've written is correct, then it makes perfect sense to communalize police, fire and educational services, and leave health care to be obtained, or not, by the individual.

So lay in and show me where I'm wrong. But please do it rationally and directly. No personal attacks please.

Welfare does not even exist as it formerly did. There are so many restrictions and hoops that few people receive any monetary benefits at all. Food stamps are the largest benefit received by the indigent.

Socialized police, fire, and education already.

Or would you prefer insurance companies sell you fire & police coverage, and you show proof of coverage before they can give aid?

Glad you brought that up... education in this country is THE WORST FOUND ANYWHERE.

Police and fire are arguably related to public safety---a legitimate government function (like the military)

As for education: Have you read anything about public education in this country? We should be ashamed.

CS:
How is it that our parents' and grandparents' generations had affordable health care and insurance? What made it work back then? We need to look in the past for what worked and apply it to today. Unfortunately, it's just like Wall St.; the problem is greed by the insurance companies and the pharmiceuticals!!

Right on!

Reinstating the upper-income 70-94% tax brackets (put into effect after WW2 to pay off the national debt), taxing capital gains as regular income (like after WW2), and going after the 52,000 American tax evaders off shoring their incomes overseas will put huge brakes on the out-of-control greed which permeates our country. The middle class had it best after WW2, when the wealthy were knocked down to normal size after the Great Depression. Demand-side economics work best for the majority.

Today, the top 1% take home 22% of all income of the U.S. It's time they paid their fair share of taxes, as if they pay any at all.

I'll tell you exactly what our parents and grandparents had because my father was a doctor for 55 years ... they had doctors -- doctors who charged a fair price for their services, came to your home when you were sick, and were trained to be good diagnosticians. Because they didn't have to pay ridiculous prices for malpractice insurance, they didn't have to cover their asses by putting you through hours and hours of expensive tests! People have to be realistic about what medicine can and can't do -- it can't fix everything, but it CAN keep your body alive much longer than it can keep your brain functioning. Frankly, having spent so much time in nursing homes, I think people SHOULD die rather than end up warehoused with bodies that can be kept going forever and brains full of mush. And if you think healthcare will be bad, just imagine all of us boomers warehoused in facilities the size of aircraft hangars!!!

Can't afford it? That's a total crock. We can afford to send billions of dollars to foreign countries, give billions of dollars to the fat cats in big banking, spend billions so we can blow up the world 20 times instead of one, but we can't afford to save innocent American citizens lives? People really need to re-evaluate their priorities. WE CAN'T AFFORD to watch people needlessly die, at least our consciouses can't. Could you watch someone choke to death in a restaurant while you sat by and did nothing and then look at yourself in the mirror in the morning? I couldn't.

In Cognito...........yes!! give them hell!!!

When it worked government was not involved in it. That's a great idea!

In Cognito

You are on point...., "Can't afford it? That's a total crock. We can afford to send billions of dollars to foreign countries, give billions of dollars to the fat cats in big banking, spend billions so we can blow up the world 20 times instead of one, but we can't afford to save innocent American citizens lives? People really need to re-evaluate their priorities. WE CAN'T AFFORD to watch people needlessly die, at least our consciouses can't. Could you watch someone choke to death in a restaurant while you sat by and did nothing and then look at yourself in the mirror in the morning? I couldn't. "

We can't afford to not do it.

What made insurance affordable back then? Insurance companies were run by the proper people...not lawyers...