Just an aside, we've done single-payer healthcare in the U.S. before. Aside from the money pits known as Medicare and Medicaid (why 2 programs? 2x the bureaucracy!), this has been done before in Tennessee. It was called "TennCare" and was canceled a couple of years back.

Why, you might ask, would a program dedicated to funding *all* health services to the "poor, downtrodden" of Tennessee be canceled? Because within a couple of years, it had bankrupted the State. Private companies dumped insurance coverage for their employees because the State was required to pick up the slack. There was a rush over the border from other states (including our Southernmost state, Mexico) which overloaded the system. In order to try to make each dollar stretch, payments were reduced to the service providers (Dr. and nurses) to the point that they couldn't cover expenses... so they quit serving TennCare "customers"... much like the lack of access in Canada, UK or Medicare providers.

So... we've tried this before here and it was a miserable failure. If I recall, Hawaii had a similar flirtation with disaster, but I am unfamiliar with the details. California wants to add this same boondoggle to their already bloated and deep under water balance sheet.

We are now just going to repeat this same error on a larger scale, because of course, now there are more pockets to pick, so *this* time it'll work.

the us armed forces are funded but not run by the gubmint. we do their bidding under a code of conduct.

I typed in the wrong fields on that last post. I gotta get off this computer for a while!

If people don't understand how awful government run healthcare will be based on the examples of Canada, Great Britian etc. they should put it into the context of government run schools.

he cost will be more than predicted, politicians will continue to throw more money at it, results will continue to go down (i.e. restricted access to healthcare)and those that can will opt out into private schools (being double dipped because they pay private tuition and taxes for public schools).

If you think the teachers unions are bad wait until the healthcare professionals unionize under a government run healthcare. I can hear the toilet fllushing now.

is nothing more than a great big organized gambling operation. The actuaries set the "odds" (i.e., the premium the customer pays) such that, at the end of each round, the medical profession gets paid and there's some money left on the table for the insurance company. That's all it is. Does the "bookie" (the insurance company) set the odds to increase the probability that there will be money on the table at the end of the round? Heck, yeah! Wouldn't you?

What happens to the insurance company when 10% of the mortgages it insured default and it has to pay the lender back?

What happens to the insurance company when there's a flood? Hint: NFIP is the sole insurer - which is ... GUBMINT (your tax dollars at work). The "for profit" insurance companies won't write flood insurance - the incidence of flood is fairly low, but the cost of paying off a losing bet is too high.

kansas lady..............

quit trying to confuze me with facts........my mind(?) is made up...

we are all going to get health care thanks to osamabama.....whether we need it or not. it will be the best care that gubmint can GIVE you......

now can you name sumpin' that da gubmint has done well...........

James is the epitome of a liberal. I want a cadillac...and I want you to pay for it. You say you have a chronic disease. Do you realize under Obama's plan, you have the duty to die because you cost too much.

Public clinics don't produce one new doctor, nurse, or specialist. All they do is take the existing ones out of the private system, making the supply of doctors smaller, forcing everybody else to pay more and more for health services, while people who feel they have no obligation to pay for services rendered jump the queue for "free" public health care services.

Right back at ya Ontario Health Coalition.

Who should determine what the labor should cost? And how on earth does taxation close that gap?

That's the law in most states, Rob. You would have been dropped from your parent's insurance at 23 if you had never been diagnosed with anything.

The real scenario here is that the consumers in the US have gotten a free ride on the backs of the hard-working Americans who never earn a fair living wage from their employers.

US capitalism survives on the lie that competition makes goods and services more affordable for the consumer. It just makes employees' services cheaper for the cost-cutting employers.

For those who think healthcare is not a constitutional right, you may be correct, but you neglect the fact that the economic system is flawed because consumer prices do not reflect what the labor should cost including healthcare. Taxation closes that gap.

Nice racket for the government, kinda like government schools. You'll pay for them, but you'll have to go elsewhere pay again if you want an education.

I'm still flabbergasted that Canadians get A YEAR of maternity leave. Completely ridiculous.

If you value it or those of your loved ones then any amount you have to pay is acceptable. when the bills pile up then file bankruptcy...it is the American way. Healthcare isn't a right it is a service just like your power or phone bill. Quit thinking that you are owed healthcare just because you live in this country. And please do not ask me to pay for you just because you screwed around all your life and never made anything of yourself. We should only take care of those who cannot take care of themselves...orphans, mentally or physically disabled, copy left, etc...

Do you really believe that a public health plan would not have the incentive to cut costs? How do you think Obama plans to cut health care costs, which is what he keeps saying he'll do? Do you realize that a big part of the reason costs are high in the privite sector is because that the government programs (Medicare, Medicaid) already pay BELOW COST and the private sector is having to subsidize it? And the bureaucracy that goes with these government plans increae costs? Do you think government plans cover anything and everything? Do you have any idea how much the private spends each year on charity care?

If the Obama plan passes, you are in for a rude awakening, sir.

WHEN do you buy fire insurance? If you wait until the house is burning down, you just might get turned down by Allstate...

Insurance is not something that was created so people wouldn't have to pay their bills. It is a business, like any other. The theory behind this one is that if you distribute risk, and the key word here is 'risk', those who suffer losses have a means of recovering from them.

Although I sympathize with your situation, you can't realistically expect an insurance company to give you the money to pay your bills if you haven't already been their customer. What is the point of that? The only point is that it absolves you of your responsibility to pay, at someone else's expense.

SO, as ParrotLeft likes to say, the solution is obviously a single-payer government system.

The government solution is one that appeals to you because you believe that the only difference between that and private insurance is that other people will pay your bills unconditionally.

Well, sad to say, since government is not shackled by fiscal constraints, they can do as they please. The wasteful beauracracy will take care of itself, and tell you that you are not WORTH healing because you cost too much, and you are not likely to be a productive member of the collective. This is all in black and white in the proposed system that was written by Tom Daschle.

Obama himself has supported that notion, by telling people that money won't be wasted "on tests and procedures that probably won't make you better".

James, be careful what you wish for. At least now the system requires that you be treated.

So you want to use the power of government to FORCE me to spend MY tax money on YOUR health care? Thanks, but no thanks.

My grandmother is undergoing her third round of chemotherapy, this time for lung cancer, at 73 years old, and still is has -good- private insurance. I also have an uncle with so many medical problems that he spends ~$20,000 a year on medication alone at 48 and has private insurance - with his only source of income being disability checks. You may not like what it will cost you to get private insurance, but the fact of the matter is you CAN get it if you're willing to pay for it. If you don't want to pay the cost, you don't have to have it. But don't go running to the government to force me to pay for your insurance. I'd rather you just rob me of it yourself, or even politely ask me. At least then I have a say in the matter.

The fundamental flaw in your argument is in private health care, you have the freedom to change insurance companies or providers, under the public option you get what they give you. Obama said alowences will have to be made for people you can't pay for "National Health care" so the people who can will have to pick up the tab for people who can't, so health care will have to be rationed. There is only so many pieces in a pie.

Here's the fundamental problem with private healthcare: Health insurers would make more money if people with chronic diseases, such as myself, would just die. We always cost more than we pay. What kind of service do you think that means I get? Can you imagine how hard it is for me to get individual private health insurance when both the insurer and I know that I'll be consuming ~$7000 a year in doctor visits and medications, or more if anything gets worse?

Conservatives always say that private sector rewards managers who spend less than their budget, while government rewards managers who spend their entire budget. That may be good for the budget, but it's bad for the consumer like me. Because the private health insurer wishes to cut my service by any legal means necessary, while a public health insurance does not have the incentive to cut costs - in fact, they have an incentive to spend as much as they have.