Its real simple...in America you work for what you want. Nothing should just be handed to you. Healthcare is a commodity and as such there are varying levels of quality. the higher the quality the more it costs. If you want high quality then you need to get off your butt and work for it.

I'm not rich. I make $11 an hour. And I can afford my own health insurance, through my employer.

That health insurance afforded me top-of-the-line care and treatment in my fight against cancer -- a fight which I won.

You don't have to be RICH to get quality health care in America. I'm living proof.

Nobody has a problem with providing health care for people who CAN'T provide for themselves. But we furiously resent being expected to pay for it for people who CAN pay for their own.

If we must produce an environmental impact statement when developing real estate, why not an employment impact statement whenever proposing legislation effecting worker related matters?

You both make the same key omission in your predictable replies about how wonderful and flawless our medical-insurance system is.

You both bleat, "Why do so many foreigners come to the U.S. for treatment, then?" And you both leave out the important word: RICH. Why do so many RICH foreigners take advantage of the U.S. medical system, which so blatantly favors the rich?

Of course, when phrased properly, the question answers itself. We do indeed have a great healthcare system in the U.S. ... for those who can AFFORD IT.

The rest of the civilized world is getting by on a system that actually benefits ALL their citizens, not just the wealthy few. How about that? Ever think maybe they've hit on something we missed?

if nationalized healthcare works so well in those other countries then why do so many of them come here for treatment? bottom line is that nationalized healthcare will provide equally poor healthcare to everyone. if you want something more then you will have to take out additional private insurance just like the citizens of the other countries do. so basically you will be paying twice. real good plan. but hey, at least you can rest easy at night knowing your taxes are going to pay for the druggie across town.

But not for the U.S. The countries listed below that have a working system (though not efficient) do not have the issues the U.S. has. For example:

Illegal immigration - Imagine how the Japanese would feel if Americans from Hawaii started boating over expecting free health care? We tolerate it. The other countries do NOT. Canada will lock your ass up if you try.

A melting pot of cultures - There's something to say about the efficiency of having a homogenous population having the same goals, priorities, etc.

At least some of those countries allow companies to offer a private alternative because it's better.

Then why is it that folks from those countries flock to the good ol' US to get TIMELY medical treatment when their lives are on the line? Because if they were to depend solely upon their government-run systems, they would die waiting, that's why.
My health insurance at work has done far more good for me than the government could EVER do.
Oh, and another thing, America didn't become the great Nation She is by copying everyone else in the world. We did it by doing things the BEST way - OUR way.

?????????????????????????????????

Since the liberals love symbolism so much I thought they'd appreciate my idea for a National Health Care poster boy:

(¯`o´¯)´·¸.)

No, socialized medicine does not work. It has been proven time and time again. America was NOT founded to be a socialist state. Those who are trying to make it into one are the ones who hate America. There are plenty of socialist countries for them in this world and flights leaving many times a day.

I finally figured out who will be the Czar of the Universal Health Care program when it is passed... Ben Dover.

1st - Using temp's is a growing practice. Especially contractors. Many of whom sit in India, China, Argentina, etc. So folks acting like this will grow because of benefits are smoking some good stuff.

2nd - Anyone that believes a company will increase salaries while removing health benefits are smoking even better stuff than those that believe point 1.

Why are we interested in removing the benefits anyway? No, the government shouldn't have a say.

But acting like you're on the side of millionaire board members for the sake of trying to look like you can actually relate with them is about the worst brown nosing I've seen here in a long time. Right, the CEO's going to give up his company paid gas card, car, and DAILY living expenses at the same time of removing health benefits for everyone else. Yeah, that makes a healthy economy.

Leave the government out of private business benefits. Let the small companies thrive. But if you are on the side of increased outsourcing, reduced benefits, and CEO ass kissing, you're not going to help the economy or employment numbers.

Some folks need to learn to balance the reduction of government and the government's ability to use of taxation as a means to help the free market keep jobs in the states and U.S. citizens healthy without going bankrupt.

When one of you fall out of a tree you are cutting down in your yard requiring a 3 week stay in the ICU and another 6 months of physical therapy and seeing what your employer paid insurance picked up, you'll remember what I've posted here. Not one of you on this thread have the means to pay for that level of service without insurance and keep your current standard of living. And most of you have employer paid anyway.

"Why not life insurance? After all, if they die they can't come to work, can they?"
That would be a reason to provide health insurance, not life insurance.

I'm a slouchy, slightly overweight and pasty IT grunt that has needs (wants are a myth btw). They'll cover your need for food, shelter and digital cable but what about my need to bump uglies!?! The welfare recepients are getting all the action. Every chick I see using foodstamps at the grocery store has a bun in the oven. Why can't that be my bun that I have no intention of supporting?! Why can't those neo-cons figure out that you just bust some yeast and dip out? That's the way it is now, lets move on bro. Responsiblilty sucks dudes, lets give Barack infinite terms of office and paaarrrrtaayy!!! Pffft, republicans are all like "Whoa, let's be reasonable and junk" and we're all "Whatever you grouchy old white dudes, you're like a government employee that should work for us and stuff so like make with the free lunches or whatever". Anybody who isn't a racist/baby-eating/evil/greedy/white devil knows that's whats up. FIGHT THE POWER! (white neo-con power that is, not the diversified benevolent democrat kind)

I too used to ask why employers provided health insurance and not other insurance products. I read an article recently that this practice began during World War II. The federal government enacted a cap on pay increases during the war, so companies began offering health insurance as a means to attract new workers. I agree it's long past time to end this practice and empower the individual to control their own healthcare.

Neal, some companies do offer auto insurance as benefits. I don't believe that companies should HAVE to offer benefits. But let's think for a moment... If a small business employing 3 full time people can't afford to help with health insurance for each of them @ $1,000 extra per month, what does that say about the cost of health care? And if that is the case, how could you expect the individuals to be able to afford it? Just a thought.

I worked for a company that paid for the CFO's tag fees on his car. Another company paid a guy to fly back and forth from Naples, FL to a fully furnished apartment and a company car every week.

Anyone ever hear of an expense report for new tires on a VP's car?

Anyone here willing to work for a company that abandons health insurance as a benefit, yet offers frivolous benefits to a select few? It's easy though. Tax the hell out of the b.s. "benefits" and keep the tax man off the health care benefits.

Got health insurance at work?
Thank a Union Worker!

Life insurance can be negotiated on cost and what you need to protect your family when you die based on elements YOU control like savings, etc. It's based on the laws of supply and demand.

Car insurance can be negotiated on cost and what you need to protect your automobiles that you drive based on elements YOU control like what you are willing to spend on a car, etc. It's based on the laws of supply and demand.

Health insurance can be negotiated on cost and what you need to protect your family but is NOT based on elements YOU control like getting cancer, life changing accidents, etc. Your health insurance needs are NOT based on the laws of supply and demand.

If you think that health is a supply/demand issue, I challenge you to find a hospital that itemizes their services by price and allows you to pick and choose what you want.

I don't believe in socialized medicine. But I do believe it should be treated different from those items we have spending control over. Most people here would reconsider how to treat health care if you had a child that wound up paralyzed or needed drugs to stay alive at the cost of $1000 per month. There's a happy median and Europe is trying for that now by offering private alternatives more aggressively.

...why health insurance has to be linked to your job. It makes no logical sense. But then Im also one of those people who doesn't see the need for perscriptions and pharmacy techs prohibiting what I can and can't buy to treat my ailments. Let the doctor tell me what I need to take, and it should be left up to my personal responsibility and freedom to pick out the recomended medicine in a store.But that's just me, Im into the whole liberty thing unlike the many sound byte patriots that will be out waving flags this July 4th.

You don't wanna give them legislative bozos any ideas! Let'm think up more ways to boss us around all by themselves.

Quite simply, you would destroy small business in this country. Small, "Joe the Plumber", businesses could not afford the cost. The result would be to hire temps if possible or to go it alone.

As a small business owner who employs 3 people full time, I would be forced to either reduce the salaries of my employees or get rid of at least one of them. It's very obvious that people don't realize that even if employers provide the coverage, it COSTS MONEY!!!