A new phenomenon will soon occur... (White Giant)

General Jeremiah... these responders are comfortable in the system as it is. In a new system, those who are comfortable and have more, have more to lose in any event of change. They will oppose any equality and won't feel any different until they have been forced into a box by the present system. For example free and universal health care is opposed by Scarlet, and others because it is their view that they shouldn't have to pay taxes to pay anyone else health care bills. They won't readily acknowledge that the tax revenue that is collected is already spent before it is collected and we have a shortfall for services. The issue of health care is not a tax issue it is a humanitarian issue. But their stance would quickly reverse if one of their loved ones had cancer and received the bottom of the barrel care because they don't have or can't afford premium health insurance. This is just one example of people caring about nothing but themselv

Wendy, I don't have any health insurance.

As I've said before, if anyone wants to voluntarily pay for someone else's healthcare, that's perfectly fine. If nobody wants to, nobody else has the right to force them to . . . no majority, no government, no individual. It's a freedom issue.

*"The issue of health care is not a tax issue it is a humanitarian issue."*

Being a 'humanitarian' is a good thing, but you shouldnt force others to be a humanitarian.

Having ignored the block of words and jumped to the last two (short) responses....

Scarlet - Thumbs up!

Serpent - Thumbs up! (because I know what you mean)

Wendy - Panning your comments, as they are utterably predictable.

And #&@! "humanitarians"

Thats a real convincing argument Border C. Let me jump off the cliff if you tell me to!

Compassion, understanding, not feeding into the nonsense tax argument against health care, is predictable? For me, yes it is.

You all are like lambs to the slaughter, you'll take any quick one liner from fox noise and run with it.

Serpent, how does offering every American citizen free and universal health care force you to be humanitarian? You perceive the 'forcing' of humanitarianism upon you by feeding into the silly notion that 'your' tax dollars will pay for it. The argument is not even an argument. It is a joke. Your tax money is absorbed before you spend it. Any service that is proposed or implemented now is paid for not by taxes but through borrowing.

Now if we announced war with Iran, North Korea, or China using x amount of excuses you would not jump up and down yelling about your taxes paying for the wars.

It amazes me how many of us are eager to contribute and support actions that create de

"It amazes me how many of us are eager to contribute and support actions that create death, while opposing things that promote health, well-being, and life."

Good point.

"Why live in, and accept, an ego-society when we all could work together towards common goals? But this dream is impossible and the world must be destroyed totally (I think), before that kind of ideas would have a change to manifest."

Bad point. Hope you're a teenager; the other options are asshole and lunatic.

"General Jeremiah... these responders are comfortable in the system as it is."

Missing the point. On the one hand, yes, many of us humans are somewhat comfortable with this system of civilization that has been evolving for many generations. It's healthy... right?... to be comfortable with the civilization your ancestors have built. More healthy than, say, wanting to destroy it.

On the

This arguement is as old as time is. Im all for people being healthy and having the right to a good education, house, children etc.... But it is wrong to expect others in society to provide it for those who cant/don't/wont work for it themselves. They do have the right to obtain it themselves. It does not take a genius to understand that the GREAT majority of social programs are abused and only enable further bad actions.

You gotta realize tho, things like social programs, health-care, bad economy etc... all these things are just part of the big picture that is all screwed and messed up. So debating things like this is really trivial, because its like painting the door on your house when the rest of the home has paint chipping off, roof leaks, floor is falling in, plumbing leaks, electrical wiring causing random fires and a plethora of other problems. Gotta go back to the basics, stop trying to put a band-aid on a slit jugular.

#1 It's such a simple argument to say that people can't/don't/won't work for themselves. Are there people out there who abuse the system and are just lazy? Of course. Is that the vast majority? Not at all. Just like the vast majority of wealthy Wall St types aren't walking around thinking about how to Madoff everyone while wearing monocles and smoking pipes filled with dollar bills.

#2 We put way too much emphasis on people's 'individualism', 'get it done' attitudes and 'rags to riches' stories. Success has far more to do with social class and luck than we generally give credit. So instead of accepting that some people started off in a far better position than others which *gave* them opportunities, we pretend like those people did something special and those that weren't *given* opportunities don't deserve support.

#3 It's easy to say that because peop

I agree, the health care solution as is doesn't go far enough.

Canada has free universal health care. They pulled out of the economic downturn before we did, reduced unemployment faster than we did, and their money isn't falling vs the 100 other currencies in the world. Somehow universal health care would be bad?

No one is asking Serpent for example to pay for anything. Convincing yourself that you actually would be paying for anyone is delusional. The government is not Serpent, and Serpent is not the government. Free Universal health care would be provided by the government and NOT Serpent

Is it wrong for you to contribute to the Social Security fund... Serpent? According to your logic it is...

"But it is wrong to expect others in society to provide it for those who cant/don't/wont work for it themselves."

The sad thing is that you place Can't with won't

I agree 100% that there are those who for whatever reason CANT afford health-care or the other necessities of life. For those, it should be provided. I do not lump all into one category, hence why I said "GREAT majority". Because I do think that MOST take advantage of the situation as a lifestyle and not an assistance as it should be.

WB you are correct in that many of peoples success isn't an example of a 'how hard I worked mentality'. There is a good book on that subject written by Malcolm Gladwell called 'Outliers', its a good read. But that's not what I'm saying. But what I am saying is that most... MOST, not all... people can provide for themselves. there is a place for charity and humanitarian deeds, but it should even then be on a necessity, not luxury basis.

True 'Serpent' is not the government, no ONE person is. Hopefully no ONE person would be as corrupt as the government. I just think

I know where you're coming from Serp and you're right about "Outliers", it's a great book. I really just think that some perspective needs to be added to this issue. It's easy to stand back and assume that most people getting assistance are manipulating the system, it's another when you actually know people that do need it. When my brother and wife lost their jobs and then 6 months later I lost mine, my entire family including my daughter went from fully covered HMO insurance for a couple of hundred dollars a month to insurance costs in excess of $1000 a month...with no job.

If it wasn't for the stimulus covering 70% of our Cobra healthcare costs we would have been screwed. Buying individual healthcare is ridiculously expensive for no valid reason. Someone buying care for themselves shouldn't have to pay double the rate of what a company pays for their employee health plans.

I'll again say, as

I think we try to tackle the same problems, but in a different way. You said ***"Buying individual healthcare is ridiculously expensive for no valid reason. Someone buying care for themselves shouldn't have to pay double the rate of what a company pays for their employee health plans."*** And I agree 100%. THATS what needs to be fixed. The WHOLE system needs to be fixed in order for people to (as the constitution says) have the RIGHT to obtain those things for themselves. Of course there are some extreme cases it does not apply, and total care has to be issued for a select few individuals.

The WHOLE system would include things like the cost of a visit to the hospital, if you break a bone the cost is astronomical! Why? Is it because the cost of the tools and materials needed to fix a broken bone is so expensive? Thats prolly part of it. What about the big dollars that doctors make? Sure they should be pai

I think there is confusion between the terms 'universal health care' and 'government run healthcare'. Universal healthcare simply means that all citizens should be guaranteed a minimum level of health coverage. In many ways we already have 'universal' healthcare in that no person who walks into an emergency room with a life threatening injury can be denied. Unfortunately, this means that people must have possibly curable/non-life threatening injuries/sicknesses turn into life threatening before they are guaranteed care, this causes excessive costs and horrible outcomes. That system isn't 'government run', it's privately run and that is part of the excessive costs that those with health insurance pay ALREADY to cover the costs of the uninsured.

Anyway, a universal healthcare system does not have to be government run, it can be a single payer system in which the government is the single payer of all health

Exactly.

Government subsidized insurance plans, contracted through private vendors. All 50 states are doing it now. The programs in most states focus on children, but are being expanded to low income adults.

Low-cost, comprehensive insurance plans available by means testing.

NOT National Health Care.

We DO NOT need the Federal Government further feeding the Health Care Industry. Better to have the Sates negotiating for themselves and providing multiple systems of audit and review, Not just the GAO.

Forget the political rhetoric and hype. This problem, at least, is an easy fix.

Okay, WB, and FB too, as both of you are reasonable, rational people. First question: How is it that, while food is an absolute necessity for life, we don't feel the need to have "universal food service," let alone "government run food service". Yes, I realize government is entangled in food production and distribution. It is entangled in virtually every commercial activity. And yes, sure, there are food stamps, as well as charity. And yes, some Americans go hungry. Though starvation is rare, and newsworthy.

But there really is a network of food producers and of food distributors, not government owned or operated, setting largely their own prices. And it's easy enough, for me anyway, to imagine taking away the gov't penalties and gov't supports and gov't price regulations where they all exist, and still having a functioning system.

Why can that happen with food, but not with health care? Th

Massive food distribution programs were implemented all over the world during the Great Depression.

Should needs arise, they will be again.

Our "Health Care Crisis" is simply a matter of rapidly shifting demographics, coupled with difficult economic times.

Again, not a Gordian Knot by any stretch of the imagination.

......unless of course, the overiding principle is not reasonable solution to peoples' demonstrated needs, but rather adherence to political ideology?

The market could, of course, provide a solution. We have it now. Pay the premiums or do without. Or accept the care via Emergency Room, and declare bankruptcy. If you are speaking of private charity, such could help; but, the hundreds of billions per annum? Question of scale. Food is relatively cheap. An internist is not.

The Market is not the "be all, end all", just as government is not. The free market enterprise s

Exactly FB, I believe if necessary a person could probably eat an acceptable diet, not particularly tasty or filling, but nutritionally sufficient, for a couple of dollars a day. $2 x 365=$730 a year. But for example, the cost of stepping on a rusty nail (according to this document http://www.mnhealthplans.org/consumers/documents/HowMuchDoesItCost2005.doc which I'm sure is not perfectly accurate but looks about right to me) is $1030. That isn't a particularly crazy injury to have, maybe an hour in an ER without wait times, but it exceeds the minimum cost of food for a year. A minimum amount of food for every person in America would be around $220B per year, compared to $2.3T on healthcare in 2008.

The other reason that healthcare is much different than food is that food is an expected expense, I can tell you right now how much food I'll

Excelleny points, WB.

Of course, JO does point the direction of the need for limitations to governmental intervention.

Such is why I prefer the many states and counties competing, as opposed to one fix all by the Feds.