Health care is a right AND a responsibility - let's encourage both

Thanks for stating a common sense position. It's essential to have a single-payer like the Medicare program, which costs 1% to administer as opposed to insurance companies, who pay themselves 30%. There's not that many presidential candidates who are pro single-payer except Kucinich. Who do we support? It appears that businesses pretty much own our politicians.
It also seems essential to accept responsibility for lowering our risk factors, i.e., smoking, transfats and high fructose.

Right - it's common sense and nothing else is going to do it. One of the other major factors is that our government, if we can make it listen to us, will need to stop subsidizing tobacco companies, big agriculture, and big pharma and start subsidizing health awareness and prevention programs.

And all of the above are correct. But. We have lost the prime motive for the continual building of our democracy. With the babble of those who only listen to the propaganda of our politicians and do not understand that our system MUST include all methods of governing from democracy to socialism and even a smidgn of dictator ship. All used in an aid to a better life for all Americans

We must return to Statehood.........................if we are to survive as a culture. We must think of ourselves as members of a tribe and act for it's well-being. We are all right now in a covert state of dictatorship from those with power and money to claim the private ears and pocketbooks of our leaders.

I am mostly in agreement. I think we have to go all the way and have universal health care as John Edwards and Dennis Kuscinich advocate. We can afford it. It willl cost less than our current system if we omit the middleman. We need taxes to go for more than war and war materiels which are a dead end in more ways than one. We can't not afford it. The dignity and worth of every American citizen is at stake. Health care is not a profit industry. It's worng to profit from pain and suffering. Thank you.

Ok, first a respones to Lorajean: Where the heck did you get the figure that insurance companies pay themselves 30% first? If you ever, in your wildest dreams, think that the Department of Insurance in ANY state in this union would grant a license to ANY insurance company, with that kind of rate structure, you SHOULD be granted immediate 100% free mental health coverage. The fact of the matter is that all rates from insurance companies must be submitted to and approved by the state regulators. Let me add that regulators frequently cut rates substantially, even when insurance companies can demonstrate that they are losing money.

As for the doctor's approach, it SOUNDS sensible. I think that it will get objections when the "priorities" start getting debated. People who don't have children will start objecting to some of the care toward pregnancy and pediatrics. Unmarried people will object to infertility treatments. People who want children (not to mention right wing religious nuts) will object to coverage for contraceptives.

Further, what about coverage for the plan vs. coverage on say, Medicaid? If Medicaid covers EVERYTHING basically, why shouldn't this? Food for thought. I mean of taxpayers cover the health care for the lowest of income folks, why should taxpaxers not get the same level of coverage? What level of coverage is provided to inmates? If full coverage is provided to killers, murderes, child molesters, rapists, why not to taxpayers? Why should the plan for TAXPAYERS be prioritized, but not for the people who aren't paying?

This sort of plan raises serious questions about PRIORITIES for Medicaid and for those who are incarcerated.

"Priorities" is a key word here and we'll need to utilize the democratic processes like referendum in order to set them. I do not believe that we can afford to pay for everything that can be done for everyone.

"Rights" and "responsibilities" are two other key words that need to be agreed on, and that conversation will be on-going. Do we pay for cosmetic surgery? Do we pay for lung transplants for smokers, even if they continue smoking, and for liposuction for people who weight twice what they should and drink 64 ounce Big Gulps three times a day? Do we need to spend 30-50% of the health care budget in the last 6 months of life or should we use a part of those funds for children and prevention?

There are a lot of tough choices to be made but they need to be made with fairness and kindness. We will not be able to please everyone but we should start with the services that everyone agrees are rights that citizens should have.

The posts above fail to answer to the problem. Our system is at fault. But, how to correct it? We have escalated into a system that rather than being supportive of it's members, is mostly supportive of those who want to be rich and famous. OUr system refuses to acknolwege that humankind is completely unequal in ability, and to have a system of equality we require all be equal of ability. therefore, We have yet to acquire a system adequate to the needs of humankind. It is doubtful we will ever be the kind of humans we aspire and claim to be. We are all to greedy and seekers of power over our own kind to ever find the solution.

Frankly, I don't understand the last post, except that it points out an important factor - we are not all of equal ability and in defining our priorities we need to acknowledge and make room for that.
Continuing to target only the system, when the system is failing largely because its members do not take responsibility for their choices, is a circular argument that will go nowhere.
We need to define a baseline of what everyone has access to, no matter what, and then argue over the rest.