Cartoon video explains universal health care.

that's strange, we have two different people saying two different things about the same system (VA)

one seems to be liberal...one is decidedly conservative.

...odd.

Look at the video..
http://current.com/items/90612299_va-the-best-socialized-government-run-program....

Over half a million patients per year come out of civilian hospitals with staff infections, HIV, and Hepatitis they didn't have when they were admitted. Only the VA has come out with extensive data to people who might have been infected, and held a public inquiry, and established procedures to reduce future risk.

Money for repairs at Walter Reed had, to my direct knowledge, been requested in four years' worth of budgets, and had been cut by the Congressional Committees who make such decisions. The "totally unacceptable" delays getting people moved from military care to VA or TRICARE, as appropriate, were roughly half the processing times for the same services elsewhere.

Under the civilian-run Medicare Part B system available in parts of Southern California, you face a year's delay in moving to another Part B if you leave the area. But they still collect a subsidy for every client. Then again, the decision to use these people was made at the state and local levels, so that would be OK, right?

Despite yearly cuts to actual operating and facilities budgets during the 12 years of Reagan/Bush I, and again during the 8 years of Bush II, the VA, CHAMPUS, and TRICARE have provided what 20 years of GOP Presidents called "The best health care a grateful nation has to offer." Oddly enough, it got better under Clinton, who restored funding and increased the budget for facilities repair/improvement. Not enough, but it was nice not to have to bring your own toilet paper to work.

I spent 26 years in the USAF, with health care being provided by a combination of federally paid military health care facilities and, when these were not available, CHAMPUS. Since I retired from the USAF, my family and I have had TRICARE, and, since I was injured during a couple of wars, I have some use of VA. All of this is federally run, most of it is the kind of single-payer system we should have had years ago, and it is first rate care. But don't take my word for that. According to a number of Presidents (mostly GOP) from 1966 to today, and a number of Senators and Representatives (again, mostly GOP) this is the best system a grateful nation can provide for those who put themselves "Between their loved homes and war's desolation."

GodsnConservatives, if I may correct a couple of misstatements: (a) while police and fire services are provided locally, to a certain level, we have federal organizations that step in when the job is too big for the locals; (b) The USCG is only considered part of the Department of Defense during times of increased tension or war -- the rest of the time, they are part of DoT; (c) The Post Office is a Federal Agency, true -- it has also run as a Quasi-Autonomous Government Organization for a number of years now, and, as of last year, according to an annual UN study, provides the world's best service on cost-to-time and cost-to-distance and reliability;(d) Fire insurance is , indeed mostly private -- with Federal Surety programs -- try getting flood insurance from anywhere other than a Federally Funded program; (e) Some water services are, indeed privatized -- we have it where I live -- the rates have tripled in the last two years -- that's why I get my water from a well and a streambed aquifer -- and interstate water transfer is a Federal program.

As long as health care in the United States is a Balkanized patchwork, surpassed in inefficiency only by the education system, we will have the current mess. The last time we had a shot at a meaningful health care system, Dwight Eisenhower, who had never paid a medical bill in his life, got told the people would think he was a Socialist and dropped the idea like a hot rock..... at least, according to his autobiography ..... and he regretted it from that day on.

State-level regulations do exist, but they vary so widely that insurance companies in Maryland can drop your coverage if the price of your meds goes up, and companies in Virginia cannot. The HMO that ran health care for California (in a system remarkably like the last GOP plan) in 1992 could cut you off in the middle of ICU treatment, and limit the time you spent on a heart catheter. How do I know? Because that's how my father (a decorated veteran of WWII) lost his life. He had 12 hours' notice before they disconnected him.

Yes, there is a tyranny being practiced, but it is one of private enterprise run wild. We pay more per capita for health care, and we have a shorter life expectancy than any industrialized nation. We pay more for education, and our children cannot get into the top 20 in comparison with other nations (and two trucking companies I know of hire their drivers from Canada, Ireland, and the UK to ensure they have people who can read, write, and do basic math). Thanks to the building industry lobbyists, building codes vary from town to town, so our poorly constructed houses are built to 18th Century standards.

The function of the Federal Government is, by any reasonable definition, to provide those services for the people that they cannot provide for themselves.

In today's world, there is very little that remains a strictly local function. For everything else, there is centralized, publicly accountable government.

Sorry for the length -- I just didn't have the time to write it shorter.

Hi psaltseller, you sound very passionate and have good points. Thank you for your reply.

However, allow me to clarify, I am not saying that our system is good the way it is, nor am I making a claim that a government run plan could never be efficient.
What I am saying is that we need to stop ignoring the constitution. Clearly the tenth amendment states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I'm not sure I would agree that health care reform is something that is delegated to the United States, therefore it's "reserved to the States... or to the people."

Furthermore, the mandate is something that I cannot agree with either. They are sneaking in a hidden tax on the middle-class... me.

For instance, I live in Massachusetts and cannot afford health insurance due to a variety of reason (increasing mortgage rate, son's tuition, unexpected expenses, etc..). Because I made $45K, which is above the poverty level, I do not qualify for a subsidy and am fined $1,000. How do you justify that? I cannot afford it. I am not being stubborn. Believe me I want insurance. I need it for a variety of health issue, but I will not put my needs above the people by trying to tax someone extra to pay for me. It's not right. Not everyone will benefit from this scenerio. Myself -- a hardworking small business owner -- will be fined and still without insurance. It's not right. If this passes at the federal level I will be fined twice -- once by Massachusetts, and once by the IRS. That puts me in an even worst predicament. What can I do? I thought this bill was suppose to help me, the uninsured!!?

Rather than arguing against health care mandates at the federal level, allow me to pose this question:

"Why can this not be done at the State-level?"

"Why can this not be done at the State-level?"

Because thats un-american. :-)

I'm with you most of the way GodsnConservatives. States need to solve this at a local level. But regulation is not the answer in any way. Its already WAY over regulated now!

The total medical regulations in the US today measure approximately (my estimate) 200,000 pages (110,000 of it just for Medicare) in length. If we were to print out the whole of the medical regulatory body in the United States today into a single book with those dimensions, the book would stand 28 feet tall, 15.5 feet of it being made up of just Medicare regulation. At 2 pounds per book, this stack of regulations would weigh 450 pounds. The total volume of all these regulations is 6.56 cubic feet or the equivelent 49 gallons of water.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=24156

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8hAZUi4BgI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2F

Healthcare itself isn't being centralized. All that would be federalized is insurance coverage. It's hardly the same thing as federalizing the police force or other municipal or state services.

The problem with state run health care is that the states will enact coverage that will not be the same in each state. One thing that is covered in one state will not be covered in another state ....so if you get sick, get sick in your state... don't travel.

FBI is a federal police, so is Alcohol and firearm, DEA, Immigration, etc

We have state-specific banking rules, and the banking system has teetered on the edge of disaster for decades. We have State-specific education systems, and "educated American" has become an oxymoron for most of the world. One of the primary reasons health insurance is just one more Balkanized mess is that the regulations (such as they are) are state specific.

When opponents of the public option cite the evils of government-run organizations, they frequently cite the lines at the DMV, or the complexity of the food stamp and WIC programs. State specific and/or state-run programs.

I'm not sure I can think of a single major aspect of government that's better off for having been run by the several states.

And because you have money, you think you are better than everyone else?