Health care is a right

I am a conservative that is trying to appeal to the audience here to understand why most are opposed to such a bill. Everyone for this bill has good intentions. But it is financially irresponsible of this administration to seek socializing healthcare. Is the current system perfect? No. But to do what is being proposed means everyone in this nation will eventually lose their right to choose the best health care for themselves and their family. Bogus figures are being used to push this legislation, such as the 47 million people who do not have health care. It's not difficult to find that the 47 million include nearly 10 million who are not U.S. citizens, 17 million that live in a household earning over $50k yearly, etc.

Everyone that is for this universal healthcare needs to be aware that this is the first step towards the government running the healthcare system. You will lose your rights with this proposal, eventually. The fines imposed by the government will evetually run insurance companies out of business so that there will no longer be any choice for you or me.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/20/sebelius-im-all-for-single-payer-system-ev...

I recomend everyone pay very close attention to Barack Obama and his Homies. Such as Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, John McCain, Hillary Clinton.....your Reps & Senators.

If they are NOT supporting HR 676, we are in serious trouble!

Those "Town Hall Meetings" Obama is having across the country....are a sham. There was one in Virginia about 2-3 weeks ago - a perfect example.

With all do respect, there were too many people telling their sad stories of rising medical bills, not having medical coverage for who knows how long due to job loss or changing jobs.

My questions were: Have ANY of the locals in attendence heard of HR 676? Where are the Doctors? Many Doctors ARE in support of HR 676.

Obama's BIG Mistake was introducing Max Baucus at one of those meetings saying "....he's been working tirelessly" for a Healthcare Plan. People applauded.....not knowing the REAL Truth.

Max Baucus is not in support of HR 676. At a meeting earlier in the year, there were people (supporting HR 676) in attendence.

People shouted out asking why he is not in support of HR 676 or words to that....he sat there. Silent. Smiling. Brushing it off like nothing happened as security officers escorted the shouters out.

Look it up on YouTube. Here is a link to get you started: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncb58qnDyxs (About 0:46 in you will see Max Baucus - grey suit - on the left).

Max Baucus is like the fox guarding the hen house! DON'T trust him! He's not supporting HR 676!

If you are able to attend a Town Hall Meeting, speak up! Shout it out! Ask if they support HR 676. Ask why they do not support it.

The 'typical' response is "there is not enough support for it". Ask THEM if they read it.

Don't know what HR 676 is? Google it. It's all there!

The short of it: "Single Payer Healthcare" - Everyone In. Nobody Out! No Premiums. No Co-pays. No Deductables. No Nonsense!

What is REALLY sad is your comment, plusaf.

America needs Health Care Reform now. Our current system does not work

As a Canadian Citizen, I experienced the world's best healthcare administration system. Some 8.5 years I bought emergency medical insurance to cover me since I relocated to the United States as a graduate student on a J1 Visa. I recently became a U.S Citizen because I believe in this country and intend to obey the laws of the Constituition. What was interesting during most of my 8.5 years here was that during those few times that I explained the benefits of Canadian health care administration, that Americans responded with displeasure. I have no idea what the current U.S. Government has planned for us all related to health care, but I have to laugh at those who displayed their displeasure. Healthcare is a basic right and if the Government provides it for you and if it is similar to that of Canada's system, it's a win-win situation. My employer pays most of my healthcare, although if I paid it the total monthly amount is $465.00. In Canada the amount would be $62.67. Take your pick. Oh, and if their are fellow Americans who want to bring up the topic of wait lines for some elective surgery in Canada and downplay the Canadian healthcare system, don't because I have not had to wait for my healthcare once in Canada. I know what I am talking about since I 53 years of age. The U.S. news media from time to time gets a story of Canadian healthcare and as usual, blows it completely out of proportion so my advice is to live in the country before you share opinions of another country's healthcare system. Since I live and work in the US and have lived in Canada, I am working to make a difference for all of us in the great State of California. Peace.

I absolutely agree. there is a bill, h.r.676 which addresses this. Please support it.

Al, the only way to bring in a decent health care system into the US would be to request the Federal Government of Canada to consult to the US. I am a Canadian who has lived and experience the "American wild co-payment gouge you monthly" system for the past 8 years and wow Canada has the best health care and best health care administration system in the world. Al, have you lived in Canada and participated in the health care there? After I tell most Americans that as a Canadian we have the best health care and health care administration, they like to talk wildly about some of these stupid odd stories that they hear from stupid American journalists who have like you never lived in Canada and participated in health care there. Yes, a few years ago there were some wait lines for certain surgeries but my government has that covered now. Al, push for Canada to assist the USA to implement the Canadian system. It Works!

Hey guys, I'm all for taking care of one another but it is impossible to believe that our government involvement will create better healthcare. Secondly, when do you think you are going to go after the government for the money to pay for this Universal Healthcare instead of the tax payer who already is burdened with a government that over taxes over spends, puts the money in their back pocket or wastes it.
Growing up, I couldnt afford healthcare and that caused me to work hard so I could afford it along with affording alot more things. Healthcare is not a right.

A good source for beginning to understand what other options are available:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

nobody cares what you say manbearpig is not real

I agree 100% with Al Gore! Universal health care should be provided to everyone. Doesn't matter what your income is, everyone needs it. There are so many people out there who work two jobs just to keep food on the table and a home for their kids. There are no benefits from this, especially health care which we all need and cant really live without. It's sad that so many people cant afford private health insurance and are living without it!
I believe that it just doesn't seem fair that many people cant afford a college education so they have to work at places like Walmart or Kroger to get income. they might be working just as hard, or even more than someone who works at a bank. But in the long run hard work doesn't always pay off especially for the middle incomers.

Al,

I agree that the system doesn't work and is way too expensive. It's in a deplorable state of affairs. However, I am not convinced that universal health care is the answer. I am a firm believer in the power of laissez-faire capitalism, althoughI must admit I am deeply troubled that prices have not been driven down by natural market forces, especially considering quality of service.

Thus, my response to your core viewpoint, "there should be universal, single-payer, government-funded healthcare", my answer is that I don't know. I would need to be better informed about how the healthcare industry is regulated by the government currently, as well as information on why laissez-faire doesn't seem to work in this instance.

However, I voted "no" because there is one thing you said that I disagree with: your claim that health care is a right. Health care is a necessity; rights and necessities are not the same thing. I need food; I don't have a right to food. I need to earn it, through work. In the same way, and for the same reasons, I believe people need to work & earn their health care.

That does not, of course, justify having to overpay for health care. If a pound of beef cost $50 and you had to wait over half an hour for it each time you went to the supermarket, you'd be justifiably outraged. Something definitely must be done (or undone, if the problem is federal regulations); therefore, I agree that legislation must be passed to save the health care industry, preferrably as soon as possible.

cathleen marie- you have some good points and some legitimate concerns...but i have to say that i feel that adequate healthcare is part of the inalienable right to the freedom of LIFE...you can't live very long without life -and when your life is denied you by lacking medical attention when necessary OR that medical care afforded you in your time of need leaves you with so many debts that you can't eat for six months - then i fail to see it as much of a privilege... Granted, i understand your point...who would pay for it? That's why i'm not for Government healthcare - but a system where a one private institution is granted the responsibility for providing health care coverage for every American...The government can set cost levels at a single, across-the-board price, and private institutions can "watchdog" this new program for defects and wrongdoing....

I think that America needs to send representatives (hopefully doctors, not administrators) to other countries that have a working National Health Care plan and take notes...find out what works and what doesn't....
After all, didn't we all grow up with the belief that, as Americans, we could achieve anything?...that nothing is impossible for us when we work together?...

I just don't understand why it is that we have to allow BIG business to control our ability to get adequate health care...It doesn't feel right to me. The whole system stinks of injustice. That's just how i feel about it....

ocanada, -- good points for sure. I do believe that things like legal protection and public primary and grade schools are rights, in a sense. I don't think that they're in the same category as fundamental rights, like life and freedom, are though. Because listen- you don't have to PAY for rights. rights, in their very nature, are endowed to you- by a creator if you like, or just by the very fact that you're a human being. This country's legislation is set up to, at the VERY LEAST, respect people's basic rights. We all agree that you have the right to live and pursue your own dreams and speak out against what you think is wrong and own a gun and a million other things. But none of those rights infringe on any of MY rights. To be very basic-- you have a right to speak, but you don't have a right to force me to listen. And none of those rights cost you anything. You can talk about that it costs money to buy a gun, but you don't have to buy the right to own it, you just have to buy the gun (and whatever safety measures your state gov. feels are appropriate.. which sucks but is a different issue.) I already talked about how we say that people have a right to public education, but we pay for that service. The fact that we pay for it makes it less of a right than life and freedom. to be honest, education and legal counsel are not rights- they are privileges of living in a nation that has collectively agreed and been able to provide them for it's citizens. As a citizen of this country, you have a right to a free education, because you've paid for it (through your taxes and stuff) .. you paid for it, it's yours. But you don't have that inherent right as a human being. You were born endowed to an education. you pay for it. So it's not the same as life and freedom (certainly you could make the argument that we pay police officers for our right to live freely in peace- but the difference there is that you're paying them to PROTECT your right, not PROVIDE it.)

think about the public school system-- do you really want your health care system to be run like that? When has eliminating free competition and letting the government be it's own watchdog ever created a successful, efficient system?

And a further point- people say that healthcare is too expensive. Yes, I agree- it is extremely costly (and that's a symptom of a very GOOD process.. but takes too long to discuss right now).. If you want to say that around 47 million americans right now are uninsured (census 2006) and you want to have the good faith in them that they really can't afford health care (which also isn't true.. as about 20% of them make about $60,000 a year.. also census 2005-6) then you have to sit down and ask yourself some real questions: if almost 15% of the country can't afford even the most basic forms of health insurance/health care.. then where would the money come to pay for all American's health care needs? I'm sorry, does the government have some secret fund that's not OUR MONEY anyways that they would use to pay for all this? Don't think that the small portion of the extremely wealthy will (or even can) support the majority of the MASSIVE tax increases that would come about from gov. health care. It will be the middle class-- it always is. the rich contribute, certainly- but the middle class mkes up the bulk of the taxpayers (esp. because in this country, the poorest people don't have to pay any taxes). So even though you can tax the small percentage of the rich more, the bulk of the money will always come from the middle class.

So if the middle class can't afford health care now, why would they collectly be able to afford.. and support the lower class's needs as well?

There's a disconnect here, and it's important for people to realize it. Government/Universal Health Care is not the way to an effective medical system.

Unfortunatly I think our country is going to have to hit rock bottom economically before we actually see a real movement for this issue.

The system we have now has turned doctors into employees to insurance companies, and as a result doctors have turned against patients, and patients against themselves by not going to get regular check ups. Some insurance plans will cover routine services at 100% (medical claims sent in with routine ICD-9 diagnosis codes on them) . But, if there is any implication by the patient to the doctor that there is an underlying medical codition the diagnosis code could be medical. If the patient is on a plan that has a deductible, they might end up with a bill for the whole charge of the visit and any labs or x-rays done as well.

Yet you have the right to legal counsel and a jury of your peers neither of which is free and both of which are a service provided by someone and yet our democracy could not function without them. As for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, health care is pursuant of life and as a result emergency care is a requirement in this country, something that has been discussed at length as one of the reasons so many have died in America, 100,000 medically preventable deaths in America last year, and why health care has become so expensive as our premiums pay 100 percent of those costs. I think that health care is pursuant to life and that we should have portable single payer health care established as a right similar to legal counsel, a right everyone is afforded but with the option to seek nongovernmental options if you have the means to do so.

Health care is not a right the same way that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are rights--
Healthcare is a service provided by people-- doctors, nurses, drug researchers and no one, no matter how much they want it or need it, has a RIGHT to their work.
Many of us feel like we need a high level of education to be successful.. we wouldn't DREAM of arriving on, say a college campus, sitting down in a classroom, and demanding that the professors educate you for free.. you pay tuition because the professors are providing you with a service. We have public primary and highschools, but still the people that work there get compensated as well. We acknowledge that those people are providing us with a service, and so we compensate them-- the same way we compensate the cashier at McDonalds for providing us with food.

My issue here is this: you can't call a service provided by another person a right. You don't have to pay for true rights-- like life and freedom. Rights, in their very nature, cannot be bought, or exchanged, or taken away from a person without a just cause. Calling health care or education (or a hamburger) a right is incorrect. Though there is much about our current health care system that we should change, we cannot begin to change it unless we have an accurate understanding of what the system is and why it is set up the way it currently is. Thinking that we have a RIGHT to healthcare the same way we have a right to our lives and our freedom is a gross misunderstanding, and I don't want the person attempting to fix the situation to have that view.

Question for the "Patriotic" Americans out there - Why is the "#1 country" in the world lagging so far behind it taking care of it's own people in regards to health care. That's alot of #2 IMHO.

The people who are affected the most are not the feared lazy people taking advantage of the system but hardworking people who don't earn enough to qualify for certain insurances or have policies that don't cover enough.

Jawny, isn't what you just stated single payer coverage? What are you disagreements with single payer coverage? This is exactly what this viewpoint is about. Decoupling insurance from employment, making it mandatory through taxation/subsidies to increase collective bargaining power and to decrease emergency health costs, and in the viewpoint Al even says it doesn't have to be totally government run. If you don't find this model preferable to the current corporate model that hasn't been driven down by market forces but instead because of an insistence on profit has gone up at a rate four time higher then inflation then I have to ask why? Don't you agree that rising costs and diminishing care has hurt health care consumers, both working class people and employers. A system that doubles its cost every five years and leaves less and less people covered resulting in pain and death is simply an unsustainable model that is not market friendly and far more importantly is simply unconscionable in the wealthiest nation on this earth.

I would also say that we should invest the health savings from this plan. If costs are reduced by the plan but taxes remain static say a three percent income tax as was proposed in the early nineties (which is on par to the average minimin wage increase in America and has been proven to be a sustainable force in the market) than we will still have an increased disposable income as three percent will be far below the current cost its win win. We then invest the extra money from the tax into further driving costs down. One way I see of doing that is to use the funds to increase the size of the pell grants for higher education in America. Originaly such grants covered upwards of one third of the costs and now they cover an eighth or less in many cases. Considering the debt that most doctors must pay off in the first years of their practice it isn't a wonder thier prices have increased. Removing a portion of that debt gives them a better footing and gives an increased incentive for going into the field. There is also currently a nursing shortage in America and cheaper study could provide a solution. More doctors and nurses with less debt means cheaper and more personal care. Hopefully increased staffing would also lead to a lessening of on call care which has also contributed to rising costs, and decreased quality of care.

why is it that the British have had Universal Health since the end of WWII, yet we here in the U.S. have to fend off the creditors and HMO sharks?

More, BS "Bureaucratic Snafu" jargon, Johnny B.

You should know that neither of those two points are even remotely close to being the biggest causes of the current crisis. Of course, I'll give you that they are problems but the their rectification would not have helped Lisa or people like her in the short time she had to rely on an insurer doing things fairly or honestly.

You continue to joust with windmills, Sancho.

THAT'S WHY I SAY GO HILLARY!

The issues of portability and insurability are the two biggest liabilities of the current system. Decoupling insurance from employment is an essential reform. The insurability issue is in part a response to the perverse incentives that exist in the system today. There is absolutely no incentive to contain costs. Consumers are completely insulated from price in this system and are never a part of the negotiation setting those prices. Unfortunately, the inflationary pressure created by these ills ripples out to other decision making, including insurers denying coverage or making coverage for people with health issues unattainable. These problems are all directly addressed by the type of free market, consumer driven reform that I advocate.

Jawnybnsc = troll. You nailed it AngelinaH!

Dodging, evading, misstating and lying is his M.O.

Jawny, when I make a parallel point of dishonest tactics and unfair claims settlement practices in the insurance industry between two types of insurance, why do you embarrass yourself by not understanding that their claims settlement practices are often copied from market to market and line to line?

Do you not see how stupid an assertion you are making to try to make a point that they don't adopt nefarious tactics from one line or division to another when it comes to settling claims to rip off consumers?

You ARE the weakest link, aren't you?
.

According to the Center For Disease Control this is the demographics as of 2006 for the uninsured in America. Roughly twenty percent of working adults are uninsured and roughly ten percent of all American children are uninsured totaling roughly 44 million. That number has been projected to have increased to a minimum of 47million as of today. Working adults aged 18-29 make up less than half of the total uninsured in America.

According to the Bureau of labor Statistics health care premiums have increased more than eighty percent for the average family since 2000 while wages have increased by less than twenty percent in that time. This increase is above inflation and has reportedly forced 2.2 million families to abandon coverage because they could no longer afford it.

Some of those aged 18-29 are veterans and though I was unable to find national statistics on the number of uninsured veterans I was able to find a publication in Oklahoma that was addressing this concern and that stated there were 25,000 uninsured veterans in Oklahoma alone. This brought on comments from Secretary of State Rice today saying that the situation as simply unfair and that these brave men and women should be insured. To insert an opinion for a moment I agree and think they have earned the right to coverage for thier service.

A further study of insurance seekers in 2006 found that eighty nine percent of all those applying for insurance were denied coverage due to pre existing conditions despite their ability to pay the premiums. less of a statistic and more of an insight is the complexities that have been discovered in the human genome project. Some of the analysis shows us that its probable that each of us contains fatal or harmful genes. Whether it be a predisposition to a disease, an allergy, or even a recessive genetic disorder that we will pass on. By these standards either ourselves or our children are all uninsurable if we take a full acounting of our genetic material.

These are the facts as up to date as I can find them. Last years statistics are still being processed and will not be known for some time. Judge them yourselves I am interested in finding other sources as well. I just wanted to put these out there. Please let my know if you know of any more recent statistics from reputable sources.

It's great to see an item generating discussion, but let's keep the conversation focused on the issue. There's no need to make things personal! If you're wondering what's acceptable, try checking out our community standards (http://current.com/s/community_standards.htm).

It is frustrating and sad to see the back and forth name calling in this thread. I see smart people in this thread who are great thinkers with valid arguments. I am making a request to move away from this violent language into a more non-violent communication. This is something I have been asking of myself and I am asking it of others as well. It is hard to do with someone poking at our ego and throwing our beliefs aside. But I think worth while in the end.

And by the way . . . since you're so concerned about my children . . . I'll have you know that my children are healthy, happy, well-adjusted, intelligent and productive members of their peer groups. I suspect that both of them will do many things in the coming years that will make us all proud. Perhaps my son or daughter will one day be a doctor and save your miserable life. Afterall, we are all valuable and worthy . . . right? I only hope that they live and work in an America that sees fit to compensate them at a level commensurate with their skill and investment in training. I only hope they live in an America that still values individual rights, private property, liberty and the free market. I hope that if people of your ilk turn America into the socialist, collectivist utopia that you dream of that they would have the sense to leave and pursue their happiness elsewhere.

Troll . . . anyone who dissents, is in the minority or disagrees with AngelinaH.

All of my posts have been on topic. Far more so than other posters here who have tried to goad me with all sorts of off topic nonsense. Are they trolls? Oh wait . . . that's right they're in the majority and you agree with them.

I've already addressed the Christian thing elsewhere. It was an honest mistake . . . which I owned up to.

Your claim to appreciate open and honest debate is a SHAM. I've answered your arguments and have introduced resources to this debate that were dismissed out of hand. At no point did you make any attempt to substantively address my arguments or any of those made at the site I referenced and now you come back . . . you again fail to address my arguments, again make claims about me that are unfounded and untrue and again insult me personally when I asked that you refrain. And you're the open and honest debater here? Your claims and your protests are LAUGHABLE on their face.

Inofuilwell,

I don't understand why you keep asking me to defend that which I did not come here to defend. At no point did I ever say that "Bureaucratic SNAFUs" are the cause of all the ills of today's system. In fact, I've gone on to cite some of the reasons why the current system is not working.

Further, the website that I linked, and which you dismissed as propaganda and dubiously funded, gives a more detailed account of the ills of the CURRENT SYSTEM. Yet you keep coming back with the same strawman and asking me to defend points that I not only didn't make, but that I've made clear that I don't support at all. Not only that, you have yet to substantively address ANY of the points made by me or by the people at freemarketcure. What you have done is smear, demonize, misdirect and LIE.

By the way . . . you were doing some due diligence on those guys over at freemarketcure. That was over a week ago. You come up with anything yet that you care to share with the group, or are you going to start talking about utilities, credit card companies and homeowners insurance again?

6) "You know what . . . take it . . . I'll just pass and wait for my next unwitting victim."

Learn to recognize tongue in cheek humor when you see it. Waving the bloody shirt over this kind of thing makes you look like a silly, humorless twit.

7) Jawny, please do us all a favor, and don't have any more children.

Finally . . . this kind of comment, in my opinion, is out of bounds and unwarranted. It is not your place to decide who should or shouldn't have children. You don't know me, you don't know my children and I'd appreciate it if you'd keep those kinds of comments to yourself.

1) I don't see you weeping for anyone. You complain about all the tax dollars you pay, and about the "free rides" that others get. How then can you say that you shed a tear for those who suffer? I'm sorry, but I have been reading your posts for some time now, and I don't buy it. I don't think anyone else does either, which is why this debate is a mute point.

That's because you place your faith in government and the collective. I place my faith in the market and individuals. I've seen people disagree about these things and debate these points honestly and openly. You don't even seem to be capable of understanding why someone might think differently. You don't even seem capable of comprehending that someone who doesn't believe what you believe might care just as much about what happens to his fellow man and might just see a disaster around the corner. One brought about by people who believe as you believe. Could you just take a moment to entertain that thought instead of the knee jerk hatred and mistrust that you so easily cast my way?

2) "When given a choice between weekends club hopping and paying for health insurance, many of your uninsured will be found gettin' their drink on at the club. "

Offensive . . . yes. True . . . yes. Hate to break it to you AngelinaH. A very large percentage of the people who advocates of universal health care call uninsured are young people who elect not to take available coverage and who spend the greater portion of the discretionary income this leaves them on entertainment. Sorry it offends you, but I'm just as offended by people who manipulate statistics in order to gain advantage in a policy debate.

3) HOW DARE YOU? This is America. Do you say, "You pay less taxes than I do, so I have priority on the roads."? NO, that's not how it works. We each pay taxes. ALL of us. And Mr. Big Stuff, if it were not for the people who were willing to do "very little" you wouldn't be running a business, would you? It is the common man who owns this country. You owe your livelihood to them. Don't presume for a moment that your contribution is so much more valid than that of your neighbor. If you're going to take that position, then know that you are NOTHING, considering that MANY people pay much, MUCH more taxes than you do...I GUARANTEE it.

You clearly miss the point and the point remains valid. I acknowledge all of those things that my taxes pay for and I understand that NONE OF THOSE THINGS is "free". Perhaps you missed the statement that I was responding to? Perhaps it was just an oversight on your part that you left out the context? The point is that it goes against my beliefs to demand of others what I do not strive to provide for myself. I cannot stand the attitude that many who pay very little or nothing to the treasury believe that the rest of us who do OWE THEM SOMETHING.

5) What's funny is that men like Bill Gates know that it's not about how much wealth you can amass, and how much you can horde for yourself. It's not a matter of who pays for what. Real men are charitable, and believe in equality. Real men know that money is not what makes the man. A real man will take the coat off his back for another in need.

What's even funnier is that you know absolutely nothing about me and yet you take it upon yourself to comment on my charity. Even funnier than that is that you apparently can't tell the difference between that which is volunteered and that which is compulsory. Property taken by force and redistributed by inequitable, unjust and overreaching institutions and bureaucracies is just straight up theft to me. The fact that you pardon all this while casting judgment on me I find offensive. Even more offensive is that you make a point to call yourself a Christian while doing so.

Aw, Johnny B in Southern California (or is that South Carolina?),

It is no wonder you've decided not to respond to my destruction of your claims that the Americans who are being screwed and even KILLED by insurers are merely occasional victims of "Bureaucratic Snafu's".

I'm still waiting for you to address the point AngelinaH and I have both made that these people are not necessarily the poor or the uninsured AND that the insurers DELIBERATELY engage in unfair claims practices that have NOTHING to do with government intervention or regulation.

These cockroaches should be regulated out of the "Free Market" you embrace for the crimes they've ALREADY committed and show no signs of ceasing.

I am one without insurance. My solution to health insurance is $1.00 a month from everybody in the USA. Whats the population???.... One dollar Every Month. Yeah at first it won't work cause the cost ,but It would work in the long term.
And everyone politics about health care for the kids. Kids are cheap to deal with,I mean 35 to 200 bucks we can deal with for Doctor visits and etc....
It's the 30 to 50 year olds we are having problems with.
$1.00 healthcare would work!!

Case in point. Jawny, you're a house of paper cards. You appear to be nothing more than a troll with too much time on his hands, and antifreeze running through his veins.

I don't see you weeping for anyone. You complain about all the tax dollars you pay, and about the "free rides" that others get. How then can you say that you shed a tear for those who suffer? I'm sorry, but I have been reading your posts for some time now, and I don't buy it. I don't think anyone else does either, which is why this debate is a mute point.

In addition, you tend to discard anything that anyone has to say without even considering it. If that weren't enough, you refute even your own offensive comments. For example:

"When given a choice between weekends club hopping and paying for health insurance, many of your uninsured will be found gettin' their drink on at the club. "

Or, How about this WHOPPER of a statement:

"1) The healthcare that you keep saying is FREE is not FREE. It will be paid for by taxpayers like me. I wasn't talking about the rebate. I was talking about the fact that at your income level, you don't pay very much, if anything, in taxes and you get a rebate every year. As a business owner and someone who is self-employed, it is I who will pay for your "FREE" healthcare. I don't expect any thanks, just acknowledge the fact that your "FREE" healthcare is paid for by someone else.

2) None of this is meant to disparage your job situation in any way. You're working and doing what you can. I have no problem with that. The fact remains . . . you are NOT a taxpayer. That said, you seem to expect a lot from your government, while very little is required from you. "

HOW DARE YOU? This is America. Do you say, "You pay less taxes than I do, so I have priority on the roads."? NO, that's not how it works. We each pay taxes. ALL of us. And Mr. Big Stuff, if it were not for the people who were willing to do "very little" you wouldn't be running a business, would you? It is the common man who owns this country. You owe your livelihood to them. Don't presume for a moment that your contribution is so much more valid than that of your neighbor. If you're going to take that position, then know that you are NOTHING, considering that MANY people pay much, MUCH more taxes than you do...I GUARANTEE it.

You know what, maybe you're right. So then, by your standards, the wealthy are paying for your child's education, your city's police and emergency services, your roads and bridges, your sewers and waterways. I mean, after all, compared to Bill Gates, your taxes are MEANINGLESS, right?

Let's be honest, your taxes are a puny contribution in the scheme of things. But, you're doing your part, which is what matters.

What's funny is that men like Bill Gates know that it's not about how much wealth you can amass, and how much you can horde for yourself. It's not a matter of who pays for what. Real men are charitable, and believe in equality. Real men know that money is not what makes the man. A real man will take the coat off his back for another in need.

My last quote from you illustrates your true intentions. It is not with love and understanding that you approach this NATIONAL issue, but with the selfish intent of a needy Internet troll. Here then, are your own words...

"You know what . . . take it . . . I'll just pass and wait for my next unwitting victim."

Jawny, people like you are what's wrong with this country. As the great George Carlin said with infinite wisdom indeed, "The public SUCKS."

Jawny, please do us all a favor, and don't have any more children.

AngelinaH,

1) Hey Jawny...I've taken a different approach with you in the past, but right now, I feel like saying SCREW YOU. But, I won't, so pretend I didn't just tell you what I was thinking.

That's very Christian of you. Thank you for thinking of my needs in such a personal way.

2) Look dude, not everyone who is uninsured is uninsured by choice. For you to generalize the 47 million people who are uninsured into a group of irresponsible club hoppers...well...it's reprehensible, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Nowhere did I make such a claim. But the fact is that a VAST MAJORITY of the uninsured are uninsured by choice. Large numbers of the "uninsured" qualify for either Medicaid or SCHIP and don't sign up. Still others who are making enough money to afford coverage choose to do otherwise. Large numbers of the young spend money on entertainment instead of on healthcare. These are WELL DOCUMENTED facts.

3) If I told you that I want insurance, but cannot afford it, would you believe me?

Yes. If I told you that part of the reason why you can't afford insurance is because the industry is so heavily regulated that it makes it virtually impossible for you as a consumer to shop for a competitive rate, would you believe me?

4) Jawny, all humans are valuable. We all have something to offer, and we are all unique miracles. For you to reach your full potential, you need to have a heart, and be able to empathize with those that you now condemn and forsake.

I have never believed otherwise. I have a beautiful heart and my loving wife and children are testimony to that fact. I have neither condemned nor forsaken anyone. It seems you are incapable of separating a disagreement over public policy from a personal affront. Your attempt to claim the moral high ground here is completely without merit and is actually quite graceless. Again you've attempted to dehumanize and demonize me while claiming to be righteous. Instead of telling you to go fuck yourself . . . I'll just call you what you are . . . a hypocrite.

5) Please, think what you will, but recognize that each man, and each woman, and each child, are unique. They are individuals. If you were to meet them, you would feel for them, because then you would see that they are real, and they breathe, and they feel pain, that they work harder than you could imagine, and they cry real tears wrought with real, and often undeserved, suffering.

So I guess it would surprise you if I told you that I feel the same way when I see people deprived of property and liberty to feed this growing monster of a government that we have. I see needless and undeserved suffering at the hands of that government and I shed a tear. I see people wanting to turn even more of their lives and personal responsibility over to the government and I sigh in disgust. I see people who put their faith in this Leviathan and I weep. You getting my point there AngelinaH?

Ocanada, despite the ramblings and repitious slurs by jawnybnsc, your basic premise of universal care is what the market SHOULD be based upon.

In the video, Twodee linked that I will try to add with an edit, it makes the very real point that insurance used to be about "spreading the risk" among the policyholders or group members.

Twodee's link on the origins of health care:

http://fora.tv/2007/04/19/Untold_Story_of_America_s_Health_Care_Crisis

Instead of that business model, it has morphed into an industry that has at its center, a goal that includes the COMPLETE avoidance of ALL risk.

Every year, the industry moves closer and closer to that goal by machinations in every sector of the market and in every operating procedure in the industry.

What hurts policyholders most of all is insurers are constantly looking for and "finding" brand new ways to profit from unfair claims manipulation AFTER the rules are already made.

Claims payments for coverages listed in the policy should be completely seperated from the business model and in most states, the insurance code prohibits raising rates to cover past INVESTMENT losses.

Insurers often get around this rule by hyping CLAIMS losses and over-stating reserves. These claims losses are supoposed to be documented but they often begin the whining during the time they are first setting "reserves" aside right after a catastrophe. The losses look enormous but when things are actually completed, there are so many "pending cases" that never reach the insurers' heavily-weighted reserve estimates and since claims can take more than two years to finally settle in complicated cases or when litigation is involved the REAL losses may never get to the reserved estimate. Then, Insurance Commissioners very seldom do enough true forensic investigation to find the true claims losses. Insurers use trade associations and other services in nefarious ways to hype the true claims losses. They are very seldom forced to provide anything but anecdotal "evidence" based on reserves and initials claims numbers when the real reason for wanting rate increases were the non-qualifying losses they suffered due to underperforming investments and poor underwriting criteria.

First of all I do have insurance I am paying for. I make well under twenty grand a year, I work three jobs and am doing all of this so that I can afford to have insurance and better myself through an education. I do not have catastrophic coverage, I have 15,000 dollars for medical as well as coverage for missing work and optical and dental. It is far from perfect but its better than nothing. This wouldn't even begin to help if I was in a serious accident and more importantly if I had any symptoms caused by my genetic disorder they will not be covered however I feel better knowing I can at least visit a doctor again.

To answer number one, this is less an item of choice and more an item of need. When I am unconscious an ambulance isn't a want or a choice any longer and if I am bleeding profusely or need immediate care it isn't about which hospital is in my managed care network that bothers my unconscious body or my emt its which is closest, which can save me! And if I am not in immediate peril or have a specific condition it is about choosing the specialist or hospital that has the best chance or shortest wait its allowing me to choose between the many factors in what will provide me the best care instead of only having one or two managed care choices.

I think some rationing of care is needed. In certain areas for instance more people are dying of skin cancer. A consultation for a melanoma can take days or weeks but a botox injection an hour if you have the cash. Americans have the second shortest wait for elective procedures next to Germany. That is elective, we have a much longer wait then the rest of the developed world for life saving treatment. If you don't find cancer early your chances of survival are hurt. I could care less if a breast surgery takes several months, if that means hundreds are going to get cancer treatment. Early and preventative treatment drive costs down.

And of the overhead cost I am very confident. Other governmental models have less than five percent of the total costs where our current model is consumed by not twenty percent but perhaps upwards of twenty I choose a conservative model for the sake of the argument.

Any augmented care would have to be for elective procedures or for overseas travel, or for premium payments for lost wages childcare or other services provided I mean there could be any number of supplemental coverages.

No. I think a tax credit or something of that nature might suffice if supplemental coverage is elected but I think universal health care is part of what drives down the cost. If the supplemental was more expensive than the single player plan. If someone has the money to buy into it than they should if they don't like the coverage and seek others and they have the money for it than fine and maybe their are incentives tax and otherwise for pursuing that coverage. Subsidies for care would have to come for those who can not afford to purchase the care. If people who could not normally afford care had regular check ups and had preventative care then the savings alone would justify the subsidy. We all pay increased premiums due to emergency care and we all have longer emergency waits both filling out needless forms and with care that could have been prevented. As I said earlier there were 100,000 medically preventable deaths in America last year more than anywhere in the developed world and actualy more than in most of the developing world per capita. Time and life are factors in universal health care not just cost but the truth is time and lives lost have a quantitative cost to the economy and in factors such as malpractice suits and they have intangible effects on morale of doctors. There are many reasons to persue this model and none simply none other than corporate profit to continue our current model.

This is only my oppinion. After all I am not a healthcare professional and though my parents were poor they found a way to cover me and my siblings.

Hey Jawny...I've taken a different approach with you in the past, but right now, I feel like saying SCREW YOU. But, I won't, so pretend I didn't just tell you what I was thinking.

Look dude, not everyone who is uninsured is uninsured by choice. For you to generalize the 47 million people who are uninsured into a group of irresponsible club hoppers...well...it's reprehensible, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

I am 26 years old. I have been to a total of 3 clubs, and I visited each one only once. It has been at least 5 years since my last "outing".

Since you know what I'm not, let me tell you a little about what I AM, so that you don't have to assume:

I am a small business owner, and I have helped other entrepreneurs in starting their businesses as well.

I am a student, and by all accounts, a "good girl".

I am uninsured, and I don't recall the last time I visited a doctor or a dentist.

How do I fit into your stereotype of the uninsured?

If I told you that I want insurance, but cannot afford it, would you believe me?

I can tell you that it is not by choice. I would like to have insurance...I really would. It's just prohibitively expensive.

I won't bore you with the details, but trust me, I'd like to have insurance. I'd like to go to the doctor or the dentist when I am in pain and afraid.

I was bitten by a dog about 3 weeks ago, and I cared for my wounds at home. Can you guess why?

I know this won't make a difference to you, because you are cold and heartless, or at least that's all I can see.

You keep saying "I get it", but you don't.

More still:

I come from a very poor upbringing. I still have scars from wounds that were never treated...because I wasn't taken to a doctor.

Is an uninsured and helpless child with gaping wounds your idea of the America you know?

Jawny, all humans are valuable. We all have something to offer, and we are all unique miracles. For you to reach your full potential, you need to have a heart, and be able to empathize with those that you now condemn and forsake.

Universal health care makes sense economically, but it shouldn't be about that...it should be about people, and values, and humanity.

We can still be profitable, but we can be ethical first. One day you will see...if the current system allows you to live long enough, which I pray it does.

Jawny, reading your comments breaks my heart, and leaves me on the verge of tears. Your callous heartlessness towards your fellow man is the worst side effect of capitalism that I can think of, and I look forward to the day where men are seen as equals, and not judged based solely on their income or lack thereof.

Please, think what you will, but recognize that each man, and each woman, and each child, are unique. They are individuals. If you were to meet them, you would feel for them, because then you would see that they are real, and they breathe, and they feel pain, that they work harder than you could imagine, and they cry real tears wrought with real, and often undeserved, suffering.

If it were you who were in need, they would certainly cry those same tears for you. I cry for you.

Read, reflect, and ask yourself what this means to YOU...

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

jawnybnsc, how is what your saying different from what is already a reality. What I mean is that it sounds as if you would like corporate capitalism and business in general to be free from limitations and standards. With all of the loopholes carefully designed into the current capitalist system we already have given freedom to the corporations to do just about anything. That is not working so well. So again, how is your idea different?

Jawnybnsc,

What an idiotic argument. Your asserrtion that the trickery used by the insurance industry in using the "more choices" phrase (which they have used in ALL lines of insurance products) is MOST CERTAINLY on point and deals directly with their dishonesty in marketing more profitable and less valuable policies in all lines of insurance.

Now your over-used "red herring" and "strawman" defenses are collapsing because you want to seperate the dishonest marketing of homeowners policies from EXACTLY what they are proposing with health insurance "CHOICES".

You are one guy who really shows his frustration and deperation when he can't use his "free market" rhetoric to address other ways insurers cloud the market and fool consumers.

News Flash, big fella, the dishonesty is industry-wide and what sells well in one sector is immediately picked up by those insurers that are lobbying regulators and selling consumers in another sector.

I'm just dying for you to tell me they don't cross market lines with their gimmicks to profiteer. So come on back and tell me that.

ocanada,

Let me first thank you for actually sticking to the subject and adding something to the debate.

You make a few assertions about government provided services that I think bear more scrutiny. Here are some questions that your arguments bring to mind:

1) What gives you confidence that single payer would give the consumer more control and what form does that control take?

2) Do you believe that under single payer that all of the cost control will come from elimination of overhead, or do you think that some rationing of care will be necessary?

3) How much confidence do you have in the "20 percent" reduction in cost through elimination of overhead that we often hear about from proponents of single payer?

4) Have you considered what the effect on cost would be if Americans actually paid for their health care?

5) Have you considered what the effect decoupling health insurance from employment would have?

6) Why do technological advances, innovation and increased efficiencies in medicine result in higher costs, while in every other sector of the economy they result in lower costs?
7) If, as you say, single payer gives us more choice, what effect would a two tiered system have on consumers who wanted to pay for care with their own dollars? (This question depends on your answer to 8 and 9 . . . I just thought of it first).

8) Would someone who didn't want to participate in the single payer regime be able to opt out?

9) If not, why not?

TYIA for earnest dialog. Sorry Inofuilwell . . . that pretty much excludes you from this conversation.

More distortions from Inofuilwell. You continue to argue against things that I haven't argued for. You continue to bring up subjects that have absolutely noting to do with this topic, to argue that I have defended this or that and in so doing to paint me as something that I'm not. Red herring(s) . . . who gives a crap. I know what you're doing and it's dishonest. Now we're talking about homeowner's insurance? Before it was utilities. And you have the temerity to claim that you're not throwing out strawmen and red herring(s)? AMAZING!!!

Good golly Miss Molly! A whole 'nother pod with Jawnybnsc using his same old tired arguments. It is great to see you guys have dispatched him and his phony charges that all the counterpoints are "strawmen arguments", "red herring" (which should actually be PLURAL since the expression is used to indicate the presence presence of a single "red" herring a school of hundreds or thousands of herring that drawn attention to the red one and he is using that single phenomenon to describe "many" of your argumentS. If those arguments were attempts to move the conversation or the debate away from the original subject then they would be many SINGLE red herrings that took attention away from the whole school of herring - or group.)

It is sort of like those people who write that they "could care less" instead of the correct expression that they "couldn't care less".

Well, anyway, congrats on chasing the single biggest apologist on this site for the egregiously dishonest insurance industry on to another pod to repeat his "give these guys a chance to improve the system" rhetoric.

Yeah, we need to do that because they've "ALMOST" got it right after 20 years of lobbying to get looser and less consumer-oriented regulatory concessions in every state in the union! Yeah, the secret is to deregulate them even more so they can compete and we all know competition creates a better product for consumers.

I don't know whether that worn-out concept is more falsely used by Libertarians or far-right fascists.

One thing is for sure and that is there is only one industry where deregulation hjas helped consumers with lower prices and that is the Airline Industry.

To challenge THAT statement he would have to produce lower utility bills after utility deregulation in may states (Truth - deregulated Texas charges 12.5 cents per kilowatt hour to consumers while regulated Oklahoma charges consumers 7.5 cents per kilowatt hour.

He would also have to show us lower homeowners insurance rates in deregulated Texas while showing us higher homeowners rates in more regulated California but guess what? In Texas, where building costs are traditionally lower than California's building costs by as much as 50%, the homeowners rates are the highest in Texas of any state in the nation - even higher than hurricane-ridden Florida where building costs and land are also higher than in Texas.

Yes, when the apologists, lobbyists, trade associations and insurers are use that consumer-friendly sounding phrase "MORE CHOICES", the only choice they are really willing to give consumers is for consumers to get to buy policies that are laughingly referred to by consumer advpocates as "Cafeteria Style Policies".

With them you get to CHOOSE your coverages and get a lower rate but if you look at the policy the one they're giving you is replacing, it was an "all risk" policy with named exclusions. The new one they are letting you CHOOSE is one that starts out with NOTHING covered but fire wind and hail and then you add the coverages you want. When you get through adding the same coverages you had in the "all risk" policy you wind up spending about 40% MORE for the same insurance you had before you could CHOOSE to opt out of the coverages you once had included in the premiums.

Since consumers almost never have the expertise or experience most actuaries and claims people have, they wind up CHOOSING policies with big gaps in coverage.

Health Care Is A Right. You bet it is. Take a look at Dennis Kucinich's plan. True Universal Health Care. http://current.com/items/88850559_this_is_the_universal_heath_care_plan_we_need

My head is spinning there my friend. So many strawmen and red herring . . . how to address them all? You know what . . . take it . . . I'll just pass and wait for my next unwitting victim.

For jawnybnsc,

Part 2...

Flu Shots for this year rattled a lot of nerves. You must have heard the Flu Shots people got this year are not as effective. Perhaps you never got a flu shot? That's fine. There are those that must have a Flu Shot and I respect that.

When I heard the Flu Shots are not as effective, I got to thinking..."How many people got Flu Shots? How much did they pay?" I then got to thinking: "The Government SHOULD pay for our Healthcare." Here is why: Those defective products, for example, such as food and other consumer goods being let into this country that contain 'lead' and other dangerous chemicals can make people sick. Right? Why would the Government ''allow" those products in? People are put in danger because our Government will NOT, repeat "NOT" do more to strengthen to make our borders safer.

Sure. There are inspectors to do that. Where are they? There are not enough of them. I would apply for a position. There are no port inspector jobs that I know of here in Boston.

NAFTA creating jobs? I don't think so.

Do you really think the country that sent us their goods will care what is in their exports? Would you care about what you bought off the shelf? What about Immigrants working for you - if any? Were they quarentined?

Sure, there was a just a cough. Would it concern you?

Should you be concerned? Do you like the idea of Illegal Immigrants coming here to get Healthcare at the expense of Tax Payers? Think of the many women arriving here 'Pregnant' at the right moment to give birth. Tax Money pays for that.

Why would OUR Government do little to protect its citizens? Immigrants are coming in with who knows what for a nasty bug. And the border rules are not so strict (think about the two border guards on the US/Mexican Border put in prison for 'doing thier job' last year).

OK, you don't want the government involved for looking out for the American People? Not strengthening our Borders? Fine. Let more items enter this country uninspected - though they were shipped as safe, they could have been tampered in some way during shipping - and NOT inspected upon arrival at our ports. Let Immigrants with potential health problems in without cause for quarentine.

Did you see the movie "SiCKO"?

Other countries with a better system are laughing at us.

You are right. I should leave. Would you pay for ALL of my moving expenses? Think of the investment you will make. After all, you are self-employed...and you are tired of the American Government looking after us, when many people can't look after themselves and it is NOT their fault.

I am aware Tax Dollars pay for the Free Healthcare people are asking/demanding.

To be clear: I am 6th Generation Black American. Blacks ARE and have been Socially/Financially Opressed for decades. Only a SMALL Percentage of Blacks are not. So, say what you will about that.

You said: "I am very happy with my plan. I save money and when I need to pay for medical care, I pay for it myself. I am covered for catastrophic care, which is exactly what insurance should pay. Nothing more."

Agreed. Your coverage should pay for your medical bills. You are fine with that.

Not every one can afford the plan you have. I stand with them.

You also said: "Those that can pay, should pay. You want to reduce costs? Make individuals responsible for their healthcare costs. Return to a free market system and stop demanding that someone else provide for you what you should be willing to provide for yourself."

That said, I don't smoke, drink or do drugs. But still, people can get sick no matter what they do to stay healthy.

How do I take care of my health if I am in the same building living with smokers below me. You think I can 'just move'? You think I can just tell them 'please don't smoke'?

On our Transit System in Boston, the no smoking laws are ignored. Transit employees will smoke on the train.

Cough! Cough! I cannot afford a car to avoid the smokers. Car pool? HA! None of my collegues live close enough to give me a ride. And, too many of them just think of themselves and their car. In other words, if I were to seek a ride home...NONE will be generous to say "I can give you a ride to the station".

I KNOW who my friends are...and they are NOT what I call 'friends'.

End of Part One...

Dude . . . you're totally missing the point.

1) The healthcare that you keep saying is FREE is not FREE. It will be paid for by taxpayers like me. I wasn't talking about the rebate. I was talking about the fact that at your income level, you don't pay very much, if anything, in taxes and you get a rebate every year. As a business owner and someone who is self-employed, it is I who will pay for your "FREE" healthcare. I don't expect any thanks, just acknowledge the fact that your "FREE" healthcare is paid for by someone else.

2) None of this is meant to disparage your job situation in any way. You're working and doing what you can. I have no problem with that. The fact remains . . . you are NOT a taxpayer. That said, you seem to expect a lot from your government, while very little is required from you.

That is the problem with our system and with giving more of our economy, money and power over to government control. It pits people like me against you. In the competition for resources in this redistributionist system, my loss is your gain. It's not right, but it is a natural consequence of this slide toward socialism we're on.

I am very happy with my plan. I save money and when I need to pay for medical care, I pay for it myself. I am covered for catastrophic care, which is exactly what insurance should pay. Nothing more. Those that can pay, should pay. You want to reduce costs? Make individuals responsible for their healthcare costs. Return to a free market system and stop demanding that someone else provide for you what you should be willing to provide for yourself.

jawnybnsc,

Thanks for the reply. But you have it all wrong about me.

I am not getting a ride. I hold two jobs and still earn below $30,000 annually. You must think I get financial assistance, too. No. I NEVER asked for it.

You must think I have never asked for a raise. I have. I never got one. You must think I should get a new job at higher pay. I have searched. I get "The most we can pay you is $9.00 an hour." But I get $12.00 and no raise in 8 years. You must think I am doing 'somthing wrong' when I job search.

I did do something wrong. I stayed in to school to get an education. I speak 'proper English'. I went to college to continue my education. I learned as many job skills as possible...for an impressive resume.

I will tell you, and not to get off topic, that Tax Rebate plan will NOT work. I will NEVER get such a check.

Free Health Care. You sound like you are against it. Let me ask you a few questions:

1) How do you feel about former First Lady Nancy Reagan having a fall at home and her Medical Bills are automatically paid for by OUR Tax Dollars?

2) How would you feel if one of your elderly familiy members had a fall at home. Would THEY get the same coverage? No. Some of that medical bill will get paid for but guess who has to pay the rest? YOU!

3) Do you like the coverage you have?

4) Would you rather have the same FREE Care all US Presidents have? How about Mayors, Governors and their families (children, for example)?

5) If you have kids (I have none and I am not ashamed to say I am glad I have none)

6) Did you know buying insurance NEVER pays 100% of the medical bill? Sure you can 'buy insurance'. The insurance pays for some of the bill. But you - yes YOU - will have to pay the rest.

Think about it: You pay $1,000 Anually for insurance. You get a medical bill for $10,000. YOUR insurance plan covers $2,000 of it. YOU pay the rest out of YOUR pocket. Why. Because Insurance Companies look for ways to SAVE Money. That means your claim is DENIED.

7) Where does the savings go? To the Greedy CEO as a 'Year End Bonus'. Meanwhile, you are dealing with what to pay for while paying for a Medical Bill that should have been paid for 100% by YOUR insurance provider.

8) So are you happy with the current plan of paying for the rest of the bill yourself?

9) Would you rather get Healthcare for FREE or pay for it? Remember, insurance NEVER pays it in full. It is eaither partial pay or 'Denied' (you pay the entire bill).

10) Notice the President of the United States NEVER seems to worry about his medical bills?

11) How would you feel if the president got treated for the same illness you have...but the president got it for FREE? Meanwhile, you are at home in need of treatment but you don't have the money for it.

12) How do you feel about the news reporting "The president is resting after his operation." And you cannot rest after yours..you have to get to work or lose your coverage. Or get taxed every month for NOT having it?

13) Having read all of this, do you really think I have it easy and you don't?

14) Have you written to your Congressman/Woman to complain? I DID!

I have it easy? Think again.

spoon,

You can talk about the census and uninsured numbers all you want. The plain truth of the matter is that many of the uninsured are voluntarily uninsured. When given a choice between weekends club hopping and paying for health insurance, many of your uninsured will be found gettin' their drink on at the club.

FREE Healthcare?!!!

FREE?!!!

While you're whippin' up that next latte, Mr. ModelTrainGuy, dreaming about how you're going to spend that nice tax refund you're sure to get and all the nice things that Uncle Sam's Gravy Train is going to bring you . . . remember that there are people out here who are paying for your ride. People like me who build and grow businesses and who send FAT TAX CHECKS to Uncle Sam EVERY QUARTER. People who provide jobs for people like you who pay NO TAXES while complaining that the government just isn't doing enough for you.

FREE?!!!

Hardly!!!

I agree. The current system is no good. No one should buy Health Insurance.

Period.

The Healthcare the President of the USA gets is paid for by our Tax Dollars. Ever since I became aware the president and other 'elected leaders' get it for free...I asked myself 'Why do THEY get it for FREE and we have to pay for it'?

Remember "The Flintstones" episode (when 'Pebbles' is born) when a guy is seen whinning down the corridor 'The pain! The pain!' When Fred asked about him, the receptionist responded "He got the Doctors Bill".

It used to be funny then. But today, in the 21st Century, it is NOT funny at all!

I seem to remember asking "why is the care not FREE?" Even though it is just a cartoon?

No parent should have to decide between buying food or buying medicine for a child. What kind of nation asks a parent to make such a decision? It's shameful. Period.

Thank you Mr. Gore for everything you do. Just want to say that I have great health insurance But I still cannot afford healthcare. The insurance for one thing is already so expensive and it keeps going up. The co pay has increased and so has Dr. visits. I just cannot afford to go to the Dr. I am ill with cysts on my ovaries. I have know about them for about 2 yrs now. However, I just cannot afford to have surgery. I am a single parent of 2 and everything already is so expensive. Job opportunity is not great around here. Gas is crazy in price. Food has gone up. I don't want to get on welfare and I probably don't qualify anyway. Anyhow, people now @ days are living paycheck by paycheck. People are doing crazy things just to survive. Wounded Vets cannot even see a regular Dr. without going to the V.A. hospital and their pention sucks.... Why does our gov. treat their people so badly. They rather help other nations first and let ours suffer. This is crazy. Soon there will not be a middle class group. Just POOR and RICH. Because the poor keep getting poor-er and the Rich keep getting Richer.

I couldn't agree more with you - sorry I voted for Bush. Why aren't the current Democratic nominees supporting this?

How about a Gore/Edwards ticket?

Brilliant! Look at Canada, GB, France... I think every American deserves to be cared for when in need. Does anyone really think that people who can't afford health care should be left to wither on the vine?

Really?

BTW: Not only low to lower middle income Americans will benefit from Universal Healthcare but most of us will benefit. Ever had an operation? A long term illness? It could bankrupt the best of us.

Think about it and vote for someone that will create a system for EVERYONE to get the medical help they need... regardless of financial status.

Obama represents the Audacity of False Hope on health care. Specifically, his plan says health insurers would have to "JUSTIFY" charging large premium differences...as if financial discrimination against people when they are sick and at their most vulnerable is justifiable at all. With friends like this who needs enemies?
Other piece of legislation he sponsored says the rest of us will have access to the same health care plan as he and other members of Congress have "except for the way (we) are rated" (sigh). He leaves that part out but I'm pretty sure he knows it's in there, and neglects to mention that federal employee plans cost more than the $12,100/year national average.
Hillary's plan says insurance companies will be prohibited from charging "large" premium differences based on "modified" community rating, whatever that means, but do understand it is the only loophole health insurance companies need. SHAME on them. Both Obama and Clinton swear they will NOT support Single Payer (Single Pool*) and insist profit-driven health insurance middlemen must be part of any solution. (*I prefer framing it as Single Pool, using the consumer rather than administrative picture. Single Payer means Single Pool.)
John Edwards's plan says insurers will have to charge "fair" premiums, which admittedly is a bit wishy-washy too, but at least his rhetoric says that he believes Single Payer (Single Pool) is obviously the best way to go, that the inordinate greed of insurance companies is the main part of the problem (which it is), and if forced to work on a level playing field, health insurers will lose (which they will).
But HERE IS THE IMPORTANT PART: Edwards is the only one of the top three that even wants to create a level playing field with REAL (not fake) community rating and guaranteed issue. The difference is Edwards "gets" what needs to be done while Obama and Clinton don't. Both (and all the Republicans running) want us to believe that the problem is the solution when it isn't. American lives and the future of our economy depend upon voters not being too busy to notice or care about the devil in their details. Edwards is the only viable candidate running for President who is even headed in the right direction. All the others are guilty of misleading on real health care reform, and we simply cannot afford to be misled any longer.

Great view, to bad your not running for president!!!!!!!!

Mrs. Jetson, If your husband is self-employed in the Uninsured States of America, reliable health insurance does not exist unless you live in New York or a couple of other states with some limited protection....and it's still outrageously expensive. You might as well take whatever they want to charge you and flush it down the toilet. At least you will not have wasted your time AND your money. Check out www.honestmedicine.com for an in-depth audio interview with the health insurance whistle-blower from the movie SICKO. His article is titled something to the effect: "Small Group Health Insurance: the Scam, the Sham and the Shame of It".

We, as Americans have a lot to be proud of, but dont get confused. We dont plateu when we reach a certain point in how "awsome" we think we are. How barbaric of us as individuals and our government alike to not feel the absolute responsibility to make sure someone doesnt die if you could help it. In the past 50 years we have become so individualy elitist that it has blinded us to our own human demands. Im not a saint, belive me, but when I have to argue a point like this it makes me feel so embarassed for our country. If we have enough money to be in a war and destroy lives for what some of us believe in, dont allow the rest of the world think we arent doing it for our betterment. If we dont take care of each other as a whole, what the hell are we fighting for? Lets stand up and make sure we come out of this as Americans. It's a country full of people that I am very proud and blessed to be a part of.

al gore is my hero i would absolutely vote for you and this time you would win too go green and stay healthy via universal health care

al gore is sexy

Mr. Gore I am sad at the fact you are not the president and that I feel you could have made so many changes in our great nation that no other president would have taken the steps to in these days, Can only hope you run again. I strongly agree that the health care that this country has now is just a huge money making machine with no real goals in helping the people that use or need health care, thank you again for the impact you have on our country and also the world. Because we are all apart of it.

Al Gore must win this coming election. Talk about someone who actually uses REASON and FACTS. I'm so tired of getting fed &$%^ through the government controlled newsmedia and watching these bought out officials run our government.

I just hope that if elected, Gore doesn't get a price tag put on him by the healthcare industry, or any other industry for that matter.

Gore is the US's only hope IMO.

I'm a fiscal conservative, social progressive (some may find that a little contradictory but I don't). One of the biggest reasons we can't build a decent car in this country, is because so much of the cost of building one goes into car companies paying for insurance. This is probably also one of the reasons they can't build cleaner cars sooner.
As a person with a disability (I'm an epileptic), and a middle age male with the usual high blood pressure and cholesterol I would probably be paying something like $700 to $1000 a month for meds. But I'm one of those lucky people with "decent" insurance.
I don't know how the religious right can preach about family values (which translated into average Joe language means only that they are anti gay marriage, and abortion). How can such an influential group that claims to reflect the teachings of Jesus Christ say anything about family values when it stands for stopping abortion, but would leave the mother and child high and dry if they didn't have insurance.
I agree that a one payer system is a moral obligation if we are going to live up to the values we claim to aspire to.

I like Al Gore as someone who is not running for president. I also totally agree with him here. When someone runs for office, they turn into a giant pandering tool. He's better as an activist.

dont_taze_me_bro, Couldn't be talking bout me. I've thought you were pig headed several times, never thought about color or race.

I understand that many of you think that those who disagree with you must be stupid, or selfish, or at best badly misinformed. One gentle-person on here suggested that my usage of colloquialisms and a less than scholarly vocabulary identified me to be among the ignorant. He/she went so far as to (almost) disparage me because of his/her assumptions in re my race.

Lest I say too much and inadvertently prove my antagonist correct, I'll close here with a link and a reminder that the treatise that this URL links to was written in a time when the term 'liberal' meant the same as what we today refer to as 'classical liberal' or 'laissez-faire,' and hadn't adopted the connotations enjoyed by present day American liberalism

http://www.mises.org/etexts/mises/og.asp

I also realize the attention span of many American's under the age of 50 is not what it could be, this is unfortunate, but understandable. That said, the treatise therein is also available, on that site, as a Adobe .pdf document, free to be downloaded and perused at ones leisure.

I'm thinking the time has come to forget about a Gore candidacy. We need to get behind someone that is actually running again or the people we once supported or the ones we thought of as a back up won't be in the running anymore because their support was/is shattered by this diversion. John Edwards has worked very hard for my support for a very long time, he deserves it. He would make a great President. He came from working class people and has not forgotten it. He hasn't got as much experience as Al Gore but they are the same kind of people. He isn't taking corporate money so I'm going to send in my bit again to help him out.

Are there any filmmakers out there? I was thinking about how and where I've heard so many of the health care horror stories I know. Most came to me when I went into small businesses and asked the owner or person working there, "How's your health insurance?" I almost created a riot in the hardware store the other day when I asked the fellow behind me if he was a farmer (because he was talking about harvesting fields). Then I asked him "the question" and all heck broke loose. Another time a farmer was leaving an insurance agent's office crying. The agent told me he had to tell the farmer that after 30 years of paying for his health policy, it didn't cover cancer (and his wife had just been diagnosed). I think a riveting documentary could be made simply by going into small businesses (and not-for-profits) around the country and askng the question, "How's your health insurance?" I think the results could have the potential to be fascinating. Reality TV with a twist. From a completelly different twist, a Reality TV show might be a good way to pick an Independent Presidential candidate. Potential candidates could debate issues each week, and the audience could then pick a winner until a final candidate is chosen. Sell commercials and use the profits from them to finance the campaign. Or not. Just dreaming again, I suppose.

You make me smile, Marilyn Murray. I always wondered why everyone who professes to believe in the "right to life" doesn't also support the access to health care as an integral part of the ability (right) to stay alive (life). Some times I just don't understand much.

Don't forget the Republicans are at a disadvantage they have lost the Christian Conservatives. They are up for grabs and would vote for the Democrats as long as we run someone that hasn't married several times with a cousin or two in the mix.

If the Republicans run Guilliani (sp?) there could well be a four-way split. If Unity 08 runs a Republican like Chuck Hegel with Al Gore, they could win. I know it wouldn't be my "dream team" but I'd vote for Al now any day any way.....if he'll run.

A third party would just split the vote and allow a Republican win. Not wishing them any bad luck, I wish they would go away.

Unity '08 says they are going to put a Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidate on the ballot in all 50 states. Voting for these candidates will be in June 2008, (online only I believe). I have not seen a list of candidates, don't know if there is one. We should ask Al if he would run as a Unity '08 candidate for President. Maybe we could get somethink (left mis-type because I like it) going.

Agreed. Our health care system is a GIANT mess.

I also want to Thank you Mr Gore, for all that you have done for this country and yes, please run for PRESIDENT. We need you, just as much and more than we did in 04.....
You are totally correct that millions of people a year go without healthcare and that if you make more than 8.50 per hour at your job, you make to much for any assistance from your state agencies, even if you are dying.

I agree with your words Mr. Gore. As I said in my CURRENT posting "Al Gore the Environmental Aspostol", you are not out of love with politics. You are right where you want to be, in the middle of it all...changing views and thoughts so that we as people can have the necessities of life. Um, also there is a recent posted "Al Gore Petition" on CURRENT.

We're not really sick (yet, thank goodness) but somewhere we crossed over the line and became "risky". As formerly solidly middle class small business owners, that means everything we've worked for our entire lives (which is a considerable but not an incredible amount) is at risk, including our lives. We went from living "The American Dream" to "An American Nightmare" virtually overnight. I spent hours and hours (and hours) looking at ALL of our options for health "insurance". Reliable health coverage simply is not available to us, and I wouldn't trust another health insurer if our lives depended upon it. I did spend some serious time looking into emmigrating because of this issue. (It's not that easy.) Still I know we are the lucky ones because we're not sick, disabled, bankrupt or dead (yet); we just live in constant terror. It is enough to make you sick. I wonder how Al is feeling?

Until you get sick or have children health care is pretty back burner. Wouldn't it be nice to listen to music on the radio, See real news on Television. Most of all not to have to worry night and day that the wrong candidate wll get the nomination? I'm getting numb with worry. I just wish Al would say yes, or no.

I just saw a post about environmental and land issues over at Daily Kos, where the main point seemed to be how great Al is, the crowds he draws, etc. Everyone is going on about. "Is he or isn't he (running)?". For whatever reason the people there seem much more worked up over the environment than they are about health care. It made me yearn for "the good old days" when my "most important" political issues weren't about immediate, life-threatening ones either. I like John Edwards a lot too, but not quite as much as I like his wife Elizabeth.

Spoon, I have to believe he does. I love and trust John Edwards, I can't believe Al Gore would take support from a thoroughly decent excellent candidate just for fun. I think he seriously intends to run. He has to know he has thrown a wrench into Edwards support. He wouldn't do that unless he is serious. I would support Al Gore first because he is an absolute sure win and has more experience without losing any of the good that John Edwards has. We have to trust that he is as decent as we believe him to be. All I ask is he choose Edwards for his running mate and get on with the damned program. NOW!

Do you think he cares?

Imagine eight years of a Gore Administration and eight years of either Edwards or Kucinich. They could repair all the damage and rebuild the neglected infrastructure. Get a hold on global warming with wind, solar, and innovation. We could build a fast rail service we so desperately need. Maybe even revive the electric car. Social Security would be protected and we could have Medicare expanded and improved to include everyone. The middle class would rise again. We can do this with Al Gore at the helm.

(Fat ankles too..definitely "not cute".) Democrats threw a strike against Kucinich in the debates with the Indian Reparations question, then another with the ShirleyMcClaine as Godmother with UFO statement, and on top of those he swung at air and missed by having to be told what year it is. Three strikes; he's definitely O-U-T of the running for Pres. Whether he was ever really in is another question. I may vote for him to send a message to the Democrats if I have no other option. He's doing great in the House. I hope he stays there forever and keeps speaking out for "we the people" because hardly anyone else seems to be doing so these days. We could use a few more voices speaking out for us with even more credibility. AL.... ARE YOU THERE?

I just saw an interesting article and blog going on over at Huffington Post called "Why Not Single Payer"? (Part 2). No one seems to think Al is an option. I wonder what they'd all be saying if they thought he was, and if they knew about this video?

Yes, unfortunately cute counts or Kucinich would be walking away with it. Thank God and genetics Al is cute. It's just that he is pissing me off by not announcing. I keep telling everyone Obama and Hillary are closet Republicans, besides Hillary has fat ankles. We will come up with an acceptable candidate in spite of the media and the DLC. Al Gore owes me for the last vote I gave him. There I said it and now I feel better.

I've lost just about all respect for Obama, and what little I had for Hillary is gone. I keep telling people what we need are Dennis Kucinich's ideas in Tom Selleck's body. (Al's pretty cute if cute counts.) The one thing we know for sure about Dennis is that he's "Not for Sale". I used to think Al was (for sale) but now I think he must not be (yay). Did you notice how calculatingly the Democratic Party targeted Kucinich in the debates? (Boy, have things changed for the worse since the parties took over the debates from the League of Women Voters....) The political machines must be a bit more afraid of Kucinich than they let on, or they would ignore him.