I am more afraid, of the idea of going to have a surgery, and discovering that it costs more than I can afford.

Ridge deserves a read. We crossed into Socialism with the New Deal. Welcome to Entitlement. Next stop: 12 people living in 2 bedroom, 1 bath homes, happily walking 2 miles to the mass transit station for minimum wage jobs and poverty level lives.

A decade ago, Dubbya's braintrust tied banks-insurance companies-brokerages together. Remember citigroup? Neutering insurance companies cuts nuts on an already staggering financial sector.

Buy canned goods and bullets.

Shit, just realized: I Love Boobs!

Rationalize Ronald Reagan and "trickle down economics" in the same Whitehouse.

Power grab for sure. But, here's the wrench in the works for me...the part that hasn't pushed my "That Makes Sense" button. Maybe I'm just mis-informed or stoopid. I kinda get the feeling, once again, that someone's trying to convince us the 1 + 1 = 3...so here goes:

When I hear about Universal/National Health Care and the term 'Socialism' used in the same breath, something doesn't add up. My impression is that with Socialized Medicine, citizens get taxed. above and beyond, to pay for everyone's health care. Something goes wrong, they just go to the hospital/doctor and get it taken care of...large and small. But, that doesn't seem to be what is being considered, here.

What I'm hearing is that there will be some kind of reorganization of the Health Care system AND the Insurance industry. So, Bar wants Health Care to be more accessible to the poor, while the upper tier pays for it AND everyone will be required to own Health Insurance, to boot? Sorry, but this doesn't add up...no matter what it's called. Wouldn't "Socialized Medicine" mean NO monthly insurance premiums?

I'm sorry, but when someone is talking faster than I can think (ie: the bail-outs), I tend to retreat...I don't like being hustled through the turnstiles.

What to fear, what to fear. Do we...

Fear that the service will suck and we will die while the bureaucrats discuss whether or not we need a particular procedure?

Fear that the service will be costly as those of us that earn a decent income continue to subsidize those that don't?

more to follow, possibly.

UPDATE: Do we...

Fear that the program will become a bloated abuse of our tax dollars that we will never get our money's worth out of?

Fear that this is just another crap power-grab from our elected leaders?

Can't todays numbnuts realize that the wealthy elite tried to brainwash the working class THE SAME WAY about medicare and social security? They said that was "socialism" too. Funny,but no one seems to mind CORPORATE WELFARE,but try to do something for the working guy or the unemployed and you're suddenly a "commie"...."Death Squads- killing the elderly and retarded"? Come on ! What obvious B.S.

I support single-payer health insurance, w/the option of private insurance. Don't expect much reform though because politicians sleep w/insurance and drug companies. Maybe some pseudo-reform.

I wish I could say that I’m stunned at the responses I’m reading from some people. Guy’s like Vic and me would make the case against National Health Care from a constitutional point of view, but nobody seems to care about that little snag so I’ll digress on that angle.

The notion that the government can eliminate wasteful inefficiencies and make everything all better is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.

When Medicare was purposed in the mid sixties, the cost was $3 billion a year, over time and adjusted for inflation, it was projected to rise to $12 billion by around 1990. The actual price in 1990 was $110 billion. Just one of a thousand examples.

The government can’t even build a fence, and we want them handling something as complex as health care? Name one government office that runs efficiently… DOT, DOE, Fannie, Freddie, the response to Katrina was a great success, right? How about Social Security? The IRS?

There’s only 1 solution to improve health care, and people are selling the government as the answer?

I think you need to see a doctor now.

'For profit' has it's limits, but I don't want to see a single-payer (government) system.
I work for a small firm in Massachusetts. Before health coverage became mandatory for Mass. residents as of 1/1/08, this company didn't carry health insurance for it's employees. Since I had to be insured, as did a co-worker with a chronic medical condition, I got the go ahead to get health insurance coverage for us.
It was 4 months of phone calls, conflicting information, federal and state regulations, tax law, administrative law, etc., etc., that I found (without getting into specifics; takes too long) was a system that is, in part, but not in whole, 'tricked' up for the benefit of a few groups: lawyers, agents/carriers (middle men), regulators, and the insurance companies.
I was able to secure a handsome high end plan through Blue Cross that suited my co-worker, but was much more than what I required. Didn't matter though - there were state laws (government) passed in 1997 that mandated that I HAD to get the same policy as my co-worker, which cost 501.70/month in 2008 (now 567.75/month in 2009), IF we were covered by our employer, and on the the other end prohibited us from joining with other member firms of our local Chamber of Commerce to form a larger 'purchasing pool' to effect lower premiums. As it stands now, I had to opt out at the end of last year, because it was just too expensive.
My point is that with all these laws and regulations, the government is ALREADY very involved. And every arcane, assinine and 'consumer hostile' hurdle I had to clear was placed there by......wait for it....federal and/or state government, in a way that is designed to accomodate entities that have essentially NO BUSINESS existing between me, my health, and the maintenance or (if I'm ill) restoration of that health.
Some simple economics; the more layers of bureaucracy (government or private) that exist between you, the consumer, and (in this case) the health care professionals whose services you wish to 'consume', the more it will cost you. All of the personnel on each of those levels draws a check, whether they perform a worthwhile service or serve a useful purpose (which most do not).
The same could be said for buying a can of paint, and that's absurd, I know but the principle still applies.
I could go on for many more pages, because I have experience with this that most people outside of the system don't. It's a complex topic, and my fingers are cramping up.
If anyone believes that MORE government management will solve these and other problems with our health care system, well, you go right on believing it. It won't. It's like that old saying about democracy: "it's the worst system of government, except for all the others". It's true of our health care system, too. There ARE some things we need to fix, and we should, but we should fix the system so it performs better, not worse.

This couldn't be simpler. What has the federal government taken control of without a substantial increase in costs, corruption and waste? Go ahead, you'll probably think of something. Maybe not.

When I lived in Canada I never saw a doctor because I was lucky enough to not need one. Because of this I am hestitant to say much about a system I know little about. However, I did have several friends who to had to go to the hospital for various reasons. I never heard them complain about anything. Two of my friends broke legs, both seemed to be taken care of effiecently and with no problems. Another had chronic health problems (That I will not get into for reasons of privacy) she never had any complaints about the health care system.

This is my experience with American health care:
Again, I have been lucky enough to have only gone to the hospital once in 20 years and a private doctor twice. Throw in my irrational dislike of doctors and hospitals and I tend to treat accidents myself, Neosporin, ACE bandage, etc. 10 years ago I hyperextended my wrist, I thought it might be broken so the next day I went to the hospital. The waiting room was practically empty so I thought that I would have no wait. I was kept waiting for 2 hours because they forgot about me. Once they remembered it was pretty routine, x-rays paperwork, etc. No problems there.
11 years ago I was in a car accident and hurt my knee. Since I hate doctors I waited about two years before I saw a doctor. He told me the problem was that it was too weak, recommended I see a physical therapist, I told him I was uninsured and he told me some excercises to do on my own. They were painful but it helped.
Eight years ago I had pink eye, fairly routine, no problems. All of those visits I paid for myself because I am uninsured. If I were to get in a serious accident or lose my health tomorrow, I would be in serious trouble. The American health system as it stands is very flawed and they often make mistakes. Some of those mistakes cost people their lives. The Canadian health care system is also imperfect I would imagine. Sorry, but there are no easy answers to this health care problem.

Since some folks here are trotting out their pet horror stories of how terrible Canadian government run health care is, and how long the waits are, let me share the experience my daughter had this year.

Day 1 - Discovers lump in breast
Day 2 - Doctor orders biopsy
Day 3 - Biopsy performed.
Day 4 - Cancer identified as type three aggressive
Day 6 - Mastectomy performed.

While no system is without its flaws, it is equally true that no system is without its strengths. The notion that every medical procedure in Canada takes weeks, or months to schedule and that patients are "always" waiting, is as much a myth as the bullshit the anti-private health care lobby in Canada spews about U.S. Health Care.

There's ups and downs to any national health care plan.

I do know this. The US spends more per head on healthcare than any other country. And we have the 37th best healthcare to show for our investment.

Whenever you see that sort of ROI, you have a system that is in danger of getting shaken up. As it should.

I wish everyone could come up to Canada and experience the first rate service of our health care system. I went to a clinic 2 weeks ago for some eye infection, waited for 2 hours and I was still in a good mood. My husband mentioned to me afterwards that there was a young patient waiting in the room, possibly needing stitches for his arm that was still bleeding, was sitting there holding a tissue over the open wound. He got tired of holding it so his mother was holding it for him for some time. He was there waiting along with a room full of people of which many may just have a cold or flu sympton. I got no treatment after the 2-hour wait (the doctor was "too scared" to prescribe me the antibiotics for my eyes) so I was told to go to the emergency instead. My husband phoned ahead and found out that the waiting time for the emergency room was 6 hrs.

People abuse the system thinking either the health care is free, or they try to make the most use out of their tax money that goes into the health care system by visiting the clinics frequently. The health care cost increases with the increase of visiting patients, government can't afford to pay the doctors enough so a lot of our doctors, guess what, went to the States. This then results in the long waiting time in the clinics or the so-called emergency rooms. The only good thing you get out of it is that even if you're living on the street, you'll get taken care of. But, if you have cancer, it doesn't matter if you live on the streets or in a million-dollar home, your wait may just cost your life. If I ever have any reason to suspect that me or any of my close relatives have cancer, the first thing I do is to purchase the earliest flight ticket I can get to go somewhere where I can get real health care.

When I go to a doctor, I want to see him the same day and get quality care. I don't want to get second class government run health care.

Like this ad says...."the government should never come between your family and your doctor". Here is an example of Canada's nationalized health care system, and we want to bring it here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwLp2KJCLOQ&eurl =http%3A%2F%2Fjimblazsik%2Ecom%2F2009%2F05%2F28%2Fa %2Dcanadian%2Dwoman%2Dwarns%2Dabout%2Dnational%2Dhe alth%2Dcare%2Dreform%2F&feature=player_embedded

Honestly, the absurd rhetoric surrounding Universal Health Care as socialism is going to cause us more problems than we'd have otherwise. Thanks to that crap, we're stuck with bolstering the insurance industry somewhat, which certainly doesn't serve public interest.

Despite that, because there will no longer be a way for insurance providers to entirely block access to people, the long term effect will be one of a reduction in prices for health care over time. If the right combination of regulation and competition is set into motion, the long term effects will be a reduction in costs for doctors by way of simplified administrative needs and reduced malpractice insurance among other things.

Because this system will rely upon changing the existing beast, the adjustments will likely be more drawn out and painful for consumers than they would otherwise be. By that I'm not referring to any of the fear-mongering and nonsensical claims about the likelihood of overrun clinics and inferior care, more that we're all going to have to wait for the market to work itself out before costs plummet for consumers. Thanks to Reagan for that.

Care itself, over the long term, is likely to improve dramatically, in all actuality. I have a few friends who study medicine, and all of them agree that genotyping is the future of treating patients the right way the first time, but until people can no longer be denied coverage, to have that crucial data on record anywhere, even privately, is an epically bad idea.

Hillary's [rather conservative] healthcare plan seems quite reasonable to me.

Why not check it out, instead of listening to anti-social right-wing Republican propaganda and having a cow about "socialism":

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ezra_klein/2007 /11/giulianis_cancer_myth.html

I thought we already had this, but only for old people.

I am over 65 so I am already on Medicare. I had to go to the doctor this summer and I stumbled over a huge mob of geezers waiting to see the doctor. I asked a couple why they were there, and it was because they had aches and pains. Well, when you get old that's what you get.



This national health thing is going to have every malingering mope hanging around the old clinic and you, my fellow citizens of the RIA, are going to foot the bill. Enjoy!

So instead of having to deal with grossly incompetent & inefficient private health care providers, we are now going to have to deal with even an even worse situation with National Health Insurance? Pass.

A mixed type of system probably would work best.

Having lived abroad where actually the natioanl health system is crumbling,and you very well could die before your seen by a doctor. Why do you think so many come here for surguries.? sure we need healthcare reform of some kind in America,but if you want what England,or France has your crazy!

It's the future and our system is the past. Talk to anyone who lives in a Western country who will tell you about the superiority of their health care system. Only Americans, conned by government and advertising, fall for the notion that health care should not be some fundamental right. . .it causes laughter and shock in other first-world nations. . .

My fears will be realized if Hillary gains power.

Should be more scared of skyrocketing medical cost and many poeple who can't afford it.