I make 50K a year..I'm 42...I couldn't afford this surgery now "with" insurance I pay 6K a year for. So you are all saying that my "for Profit" provider is a better plan than the VA? I disagree.

"They were discussing this, and one of the anchors said, "Was this surgery really necessary for someone of her age?"

Unreal."

I do agree that while comments like that are out of line and tasteless, it is not entirely unfounded. My grandmother recently had open-heart surgery (she is 86), and she was adverse to having it (her doctor was pushing for it since they said that her heart was in excellent condition, and it was damage to one of her arteries that needed to be repaired).

Anyway, again, it is not unfounded, but whether or not is appropriate should be between her and her doctor, not news anchors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/nyregion/16vincent.html?_r=1use

It's human nature to fight for ones life regardless of who you are, where you are or where you come from. In a government structured health care system there will come a "relative age" where it will cost the system more to keep you alive than what your "worth". At that point it will be "politically correct" for you to die so that others may benefit.

How long before the only people who have a life worth living, are the ones who are at the top of the political food chain?

To CopyLeft and those of like mind:
When I grew up, we lived in a house that was piecemealed together around a real log cabin built right after the Civil War. Our house was uninsulated (but air-conditioned - if that's what you call being 2 feet off the ground with wind blowing underneath) and it was heated by a coal stove in one room and a wood stove in the other room. My dad made a "living" by selling eggs, apples, cotton, corn and pimento peppers. Everything else we grew or raised. I finished high school, went to college and got a full-time job when I was 17 years old. Over the years, I gradually moved up the ladder, saved my money, and am now ready to retire at 56. I bought a house in 1983 for $76,000, paid for it, and still live in it. I own 2 cars (all paid for)and I owe not a single dime. I worked hard for my money and I ALWAYS lived below my means. Now, I can retire and live comfortably without governement assistance. Yes, I will pay for my own insurance (over $800/month). My son serves in the military. I give to my church and I volunteer at places which assist those who can't care for themselves (old people, sick people, children and animals). I don't want your money or that of anyone else's but I damn sure want what I earned through hard work and what I saved when everyone else was buying BMWs, 4000 sq. ft. houses and 52" Plasma TVs.
I do not envy Mrs. Bush one iota. Whatever she and her husband can afford doesn't concern me in the least. It is people like you who obviously have a chip on your shoulder or you are too damn lazy to pull your own weight. I'm not "rich" but I do look after my family and take care of my own. I suggest you and the other leeches like you consider doing that also.

"Non-rich" people get life-saving treatment in this country every day, including people with no insurance and no money.

Real Life, I doubt your mother traveled by ambulance and stayed in the hospital for 2 days for a simple blood test. Sorry, but I don't buy your story.

Just like Ted Kennedy undergoing brain cancer treatment. But you aren't going to say how much that costs.

You seem to be one of these bitter people out there, much like my parents, who are so jealous of those who have done well, that you wear your bitter pill in your sleeve. My parents are so damn jealous of the living that my husband makes, they are letting it interfere with our relationship. Isn't that sad? You would think they would be happy for their daughter that she married a man who has worked his a** off to be where he is today, but now, they are so jealous that they can't stand it. The problem with stealing from those who HAVE and giving it to the HAVE NOTS, is that you cannot change the ATTITUDE of the have nots.
If you were to take a "have not" (just for example, a homeless person) and change places with a "have" (someone making upwards of over $250,000.00 a year), the situation would reverse itself again because of their ATTITUDE towards spending/saving money and most likely work ethic. Education is available to ALL of us, and it you want it bad enough, you will find a way to get it. We are all born naked with the same opportunity as everyone else. The HAVES are the ones who made better choices for themselves.

Have you seen government housing? Would you want to live there? What makes you think you would want government health care?

My goodness, what a woman!!! Nothing but best wishes to her and her family.

On another note, socalized medicine will create jobs, or at least vacant positions, as our average life expectancy will drop back by 10-15 years, due to rationing/eliminating medical treatment for the "elderly." Sooooooo, all us heart patients, diabetics, COPD folks and other catastrophic diseases (and accident victims) better get your house in order.

I lived in England under socalized meds. It was awful. Luckily, we were able to go outside the system. I don't think we'll have that option.

Democrats will start screaming when their parents are subject to government healthcare and they have no choices regarding treatment.

Good luck.

One of the many problems with general/socialized/universal healthcare is we are already short of doctors and nurses. It would take 8 years to bring out a new batch, not counting all the doctors that would withdraw from the system as they are threatening to do. There simply are not enough resources to handle the sudden rush of new patients that are showing up for simple colds that normally would have taken care of it themselves. If the system is there, they WILL abuse it. The current waiting rooms will be overrun.

Forrest either you are a dyed in the wool leftist or seriously misguided as judging from your post, "rationed healthcare". Every time that a leftist comes up with a program where government appears to 'care' for the populace, it fails and brings with it a whole bunch of unintended consequences. Health care will be rationed. In the UK the government has started to allow private clinics to open up and their NHS is failing. In Canada, they come to the US for procedures. Going back to the UK, those that can go to Eastern Europe for their surgical procedures when the NHS either denies the care or puts a huge unnecessary wait for a procedure. What will happen in the US is that people will start to go to other countries for care when it is denied in the US. While Obama's intentions may appear noble, in the end they have hideous unitended consequences i.e. failure.

That's one of the problems with Socialism (or communism) they spout all this rhetoric about caring about the little guy and making everything equal but it usually becomes less and less equal as those with political power and those who curry their favor get more than you and I do. Something like Geitner getting to get away with not paying taxes till he get tapped for this position and THEN he gets to pay with no repercussions. We couldn't get away with that and that's how it will be with healthcare and everything else. The fact we aren't screaming for his replacement says a lot for the power of Obama's persuasion.

A quick and full recovery to Mrs. Bush.

Neal, not to sound like a supporter for socialized medicine, but you display a misunderstanding of Obama's intent. The President does not wish to shut down all private hospitals and build government hospitals, he just wishes to give people that can't afford treatment, a government alternative. The private sector would not go away. His plans don't have to do with the doctors or nurses, or buildings, it has to do with how they get paid. It is the insurance companies now that stand between patients and their doctors, and there does need to be government intervention there.

But to entertain your concern...Barbara Bush is as likely to go without healthcare in a Universal Healthcare system as Queen Elizabeth, and I dont see the Queen being displaced by rationing any time soon. Money talks, and there will always be a private sector in healthcare. (is there even a rationing problem in England? Never heard of one...)

It looks like the Early Show is already beginning to promote the concept of "rationing" of Obama's socialized health care. I'm sure you will begin to gradually see the libs and media constantly start throwing little comments about how old people don't need all these surgeries. That's the way the libs operate. They keep beating down the same lines over and over until every average mouthbreather out there becomes brainwashed.

I loved when Mrs. Bush spoke the truth a few years ago about the "victims" of Hurricane Katrina. After all the billions of support and handouts, she said that let's face it, many of these refugees are better off now than before!

If Mrs. Bush had been the Early Show's commentator's Mom, I'm sure that it would have never been said. Disgraceful...

Does anyone think even under rationed healthcare that the wife of a former president or mother of a former president would not go to the top of the list ?