In fact, most people who get Medicare are very satisfied with it. And what is wrong with the post office? When was the last time they lost your mail? Probably never. Every time I'm in the Post Office they are efficient and courteous, and give every customer their full attention. Please drop your preconceived notions and look at the facts.

In any case, the government is not going to practice healthcare at all. They are going to administer insurance policies, paid for by people's premiums. Those people can then choose which doctor to go to, just like people who currently have private insurance can.

No, actually if you are dead your chance of getting sick is much lower.

Porkbevr, that funny! But I think you missed metalschmidt's point- he seems to be saying that by making sure we don't get the healthcare we need, we remain sick and therefore dependent on big Pharm, not that they're trying to kill us off. No one stays in business by killing off their customers, except perhaps big Tobacco, but their products take so many years to kill that there's always another generation of customers to take their place!

Public education, police protection, public highways. All these things are not in the constitution, but are needed to make the nation work. And how conservative of you to be afraid that someone, somewhere may get something on your dime.

jpb- doesn't the preamble to the constitution mention for the general welfare? It doesn't outlaw slavery, but an amendment corrected that, didn't it? The constitution was designed to allow amendments- for a reason! The right for women to vote, civil rights, social security (remember FDR's New Deal?)... and the list goes on. But IF the constitution was meant to be static, set in stone, which it explicitly wasn't- doesn't the right to life that you admit to include health? After all, the sick, dying, and dead can't pursue happiness, so even by your own definition those citizens are being deprived of constitutionally guaranteed rights, right?

Do a little more reading and you'll (hopefully) realize just how wrong your POV is!

And quoting Marx? Where in the hell does that fit into the debate? I believe that's referred to as a red herring, that is, something irrelevant meant to cloud the argument, cause confusion and spread doubt. How dare you call yourself an American!

Dave J, how liberal of you to think you have a right to his dime to give it to someone else. Let him choose if he wants to give, and to whom.

Porkbevr- why don't we just make everything voluntary! Do the math and let us know how much we each have to voluntarily give for those services. The rich would have no problem, I'm sure, but God forbid a poor family couldn't "give" enough, and therefore couldn't use the roads, have safe water, police protection or medical care. But when all those "have-nots" rise up against the "haves", then you better hope you gave your share for police/government protection. Shame on you if you didn't...

Let's all just stop paying taxes, make everything work on a volunteer basis and hope that some wealthy people decide to build tanks, ammo, ships and fighter jets for the military, whom I suppose will all volunteer to fight for us. You're quite the genius, you know.

Yeah, that's the ticket!

The military already volunteer to fight for us! Do you seriously think they do it for the money? Maybe you think they do it for the perks? They make less then minimum wage and often times the families struggle to survive on the income while husbands and wives are gone for months at a time. As to the perks, do you really think they sign up to serve so that they can get free admission to a theme park once a year? Maybe you think their "awesome" health care is the perk they want. Wait, no the entire country is learning just how inept that system is at taking care of them. These men and women could make more money in the private sector and would be better able to support their families and yet they VOLUNTEER to serve their country!

I agree if the feds stayed out of our pockets that alone would make it affordable for people to buy their own health insurance. TAX TAX keep Taxing us more Mr. Obama and we will all be camping on the east lawn. This spending is way out of control!!!!

First your statement, " From each according to his ability, to each according to his need " is from Karl Marx " Das Kapital", and has never been tried anywhere, as greedy politicians have always exploited thier own people, just like the USA has exploited it's people to reward the rich and powerful.

My question is whether you think that the Military has a right to US citizens tax money, without full disclosure, or citizens consent?

It actually costs you more to have people uninsured in our system than it would to have them all insured. You pay the costs they incur for emergency and chronic care treatment that they can't pay for. If everyone were able to stay healthy and everyone were covered, healthcare would cost us all a lot less.

And I have to say that your attitude is selfish. Why are you unwilling to pay your share for running our society? People are social animals. They live in groups. When one member of the group suffers, all are affected.

No, it isn't directly mentioned in the Constitution, although it's implied under the general welfare of the people clause, but neither was slavery abolished, voting rights granted to women, a national highway system, electric co-ops, clean water and sewage service or countless other things in modern life that we use daily and take for granted. Consider yourself extremely fortunate to live under a Constitution that is specifically designed to allow for improvements to be made. You won't find that luxury in most nations of the world!

You can imply many things from practically anything. You liberals want to stretch the limits of the Constitution to the breaking point. It is not a living document, but a pretty concrete one that is not easily or quickly altered.

Porkbevr said: You can imply many things from practically anything. You liberals want to stretch the limits of the Constitution to the breaking point. It is not a living document, but a pretty concrete one that is not easily or quickly altered

Well, your first sentence shows a remarkable level of simplicity in your thinking. Futhermore, the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to be specifically not concrete as you say, not set in stone. It was written with enough deliberate openess to allow it to grow with the needs of a growing nation. And changing it was made difficult mainly so that rights of the individual as laid out in the Bill of Rights and the text of the Constitution couldn't be taken from any citizen of the nation. Monarchies, such as that of England at the time, and authoritarian regimes have their policies set in stone, or concrete as you would say. That the Constitution would be considered set in stone would've terrifed those who worked so long and hard to get it written and approved in the first place.

We don't live in a democracy, despite the daily jargon, because that would lead to mob rule; I could easily imagine an American Idol style election, where the most popular constestants run the government. Rather, we live in a Republic

The right to life requires a right to health care if people are dying because they can't afford health care. But I guess some people think it's more important to give money to fat cat big bankers.

No a right to Life means that they will protect you from being harmed BUT first you must protect yuorself... so go get insurance and stop asking me to pay for it. You do not have to have healthcare to have had Life ... once they saw to it that you were born the rest is up to you. Why should we have to pay for you to keep living?

And yet, the overall health outcome in nearly all nations with universal healthcare is shown by studies to be better than in the U.S. and costs to society are substantially less. As for long wait times, lack of options, and overcrowed, dirty hospitals try going to the ER of most publicly supported U.S. hospitals (which is where the uninsured go after they've become so ill it costs taxpayers a small fortune to treat them)- if you want to get sicker than you already are, there's no easier place!

Warning - xplorer59 is a Pelosi/Reid Drone. Regurgitates National Healthcare talking points endlessly while referring to "studies" which purportedly place Eurocare and Canacare ahead of the U.S. system. This in spite of Nationals from those countries/regions documented complaints about their systems, and their frequent attempts to obtain treatment in the U.S.A.

Warning- is a bought and paid for mouthpiece for those who oppose Universal healthcare because of the vast sums of money certain special interests stand to lose.

Just what is it you're questioning? That overall health outcomes are better in those nations? They are, friend, I didn't make that up- check for yourself. Or that their costs are less? 20% of this nation's GDP is spent on healthcare- seems a staggering sum to me. And you purport more validity to the statements/complaints of foriegn Nationals than to the statesments/complaints of U.S. citizens?

Of course those who are wealthy enough will come to the U.S. for treatments... that says absolutely nothing about the overall quality of their own systems, only that those with enough money can do whatever they please. Universal healthcare plans generally focus on prevention and early treatment of disease, but don't pay for such things as cosmetic surgeries, and so can keep costs low. The U.S. is probably the best place to go for facelifts or a boob job, but that's irrelvant, isn't it? And South Africa, of all places, has better cardiac care. A lot of U.S. citizens go to Mexico for treatments not allowed here due to safety concerns. By your reasoning that makes Mexican healthcare superior to our own. There are more than thirty (37 is the exact number I've seen) industrialized nations that provide healthcare, we just happen to be the only one that doesn't. And it isn't free to the patient- most plans require a payment (I believe it's approximately $35 U.S. for most of the plans) that discourages people from wasting time and resources everytime Junior gets the sniffles. But under our current system the uninsured end up being taken by ambulance to the local ER- that's a terribly expensive, stupid and short-sighted way to run a healthcare system!

Are you simply an uninformed pawn of the pharma industry and the over-priced drugs they push here? You do see the television commercials and magazine ads, do you not? Such widespread advertising doesn't come cheap.

If they can sell the exact same drugs overseas for a fraction of what they bill the insurance companies and Federal government here, then obviously we're paying far too much! Can you possibly get that fact through your (apparently) addled brain before you blindly attack others?

Just whose side are you on- foriegn Nationals or U.S. citizens?

I didn't chose my skincolor,my parents and sex...

Nobody,normal humanbeing, wants to get sick. So in five years I 've been seen once by my family doctor...

Those foreign nationals(doctors) or patients come here for MONEY they want to make, in huge amounts, or to pay less(the rich pay less because the insurance system is for them,cheap and affordable.)

You are so much right...we need universal care system with some auto-control and stopping blaiming the poor for the mess. If real capitalism=fare competition (but not for the bankers) is than why are private insurers so scared by the govornment competition?

Is it going to brake their monopolly?ha,ha,ha...I hope I don't die of so much stupidity and hypocrasy.

General welfare.... hhhhmmm think about it... it could mean housing.. yep government should pay my housing bill, it means electricity/heat/cooling so pay my electric bill, it means food, so have government run grocery stores to make sure there is no competition and all prices are the same and then provide the means to buy the food. General welfare could mean cars, after all we need to get around, so pay my busfare, auto insurance, car payments. GW could mean staying informed so pay my cable. GW could mean sunscreen, after all my general welfare is not to get skin cancer so pay for my sunscreen... oh yea and vacations, it is for my general welfare to get away from stress once in a while so the government should pay for my cruise to the islands.

Look health care isn't denied anyone.. min wage jobs are not meant to support a family and if you need more money WORK for it, educated yourself and move on up. I did it, lots of people did it.

It is ONLY 46 million (if that) people without health insurance and that number is disputed all over the place... at least 12 million are illegals, some CHOOSE to not participate in insurance offered them.. some say that can't afford it but how many have cable, a car payment and a cell phone. Bottom line, it is affordable, it is possible and it isn't a "RIGHT".

RochesterTiger - If we choose for general welfare to include healthcare because without good health nobody can go out and get the housing, food and cars for themselves, then that's what general welfare means.

Healthcare is denied to anyone in our country who can't afford it. And if they go to the emergency room anyway they will be charged a fortune and will go bankrupt. When a person has a disabling disease and loses their job because of it and can't work, then what? Sure you worked for what you have, but you had good health already. If you hadn't had your health you wouldn't have been able to do that. How long did it take you to educate yourself and work toward what you have? If you had had a child who had a serious illness while you were trying to lift yourself up it would most likely have ruined your plans and you would still be struggling with your minimum wage job and in debt up to your eyeballs with no relief in sight. Look around you and have some compassion. Not everyone is as fortunate as you have been.

I agree! I am able to do it and do not expect anyone to help me. If you cant get insurance go get another job. Work harder find a higher paying job. Almost no one makes min. wage today and if so you need to look else where (I am not speaking of high school kids working during the summer) Even Wal-mart will pay you more than min. wage! We need to stop doing everything for everyone and make them take care of theirselves and their children!

You guys are obviously not aware of the real conditions that people face in their lives. If it were that easy, believe me, 99.9% of people would be doing it.

Let's go back to the 1950's, no health insurance pay as you go. My mother took me to the doctor and paid when we left, same with the dentist. To many Americans want everything for nothing, that's why so many of our jobs went overseas. I've worked for everything I have, and I already pay enough taxes for all the freeloaders and now Obama wants me to pay more. Education, water, electricity, and roads are all paid for by taxes, plus I still get water and electric bills on top of that. So there is no free lunch somebody is going to have to pay for it, and the government has proven time and again they can't run anything right or stay within a budget.

GKDJR Let's go back to the 1950's, no health insurance pay as you go. My mother took me to the doctor and paid when we left, same with the dentist.

Employer provided health insurance became common in the post-war period. If your father's employer didn't provide it (which admittedly was a common occurance) then of course it was pay-as-you-go. But the 1950's were a time of unprecedented economic growth, and doctor /dentist visits were not terribly expensive, especially in the sense of constituting a significant % of take home pay. The same can't be said today- that was 1/2 a century or more ago so your cost analogy is less than worthless- it just may actually convince others to believe as you do!

To many Americans want everything for nothing, that's why so many of our jobs went overseas.

I'm sure you meant "Too", not "To", but honestly don't know how to respond to such a nonsensical statement except to ask how it even addresses the issue being discussed.

I've worked for everything I have, and I already pay enough taxes for all the freeloaders and now Obama wants me to pay more. Education, water, electricity, and roads are all paid for by taxes, plus I still get water and electric bills on top of that

I'm sure that like so many of us you've worked hard for what you have. But, the previous generation's taxes paid for the infrastructure needed for education, electical and water services, highways, and so on. Just as your taxes are paying towards the current generation's services. But you can't just build the infrastructure and flip a switch, then ignore it. It takes manpower (workers, buddy- you don't volunteer your services for free, why think anyone else will or even should), as well as maintenance, repairs, improvements and upgrades to keep it all running. Think about your car- does paying the purchase price mean it won't require routine maintenance, repairs, oil changes, and, uh, gasoline? You know better, so why be upset that you have to pay to have water and electricity delivered daily to your home?

So there is no free lunch somebody is going to have to pay for it

You are so right, there is no such thing as a free lunch and somebody has to pay. But we're paying out the nose for healthcare now (roughly 20% of GDP), so why not revamp the whole system and produce long-term savings? Or would you rather keep things the same (and sorry, the 1950's won't be coming back), or pay a little more in taxes in order to pay far less down the road? And by the way, government happens to run quite a few things right, not the least of which is the military. On budget-rarely, but do most American families stay within a budget- rarely.

Explorer50

"You are so right, there is no such thing as a free lunch and somebody has to pay. But we're paying out the nose for healthcare now (roughly 20% of GDP), so why not revamp the whole system and produce long-term savings? Or would you rather keep things the same (and sorry, the 1950's won't be coming back), or pay a little more in taxes in order to pay far less down the road? And by the way, government happens to run quite a few things right, not the least of which is the military. On budget-rarely, but do most American families stay within a budget- rarely."

You make this statement as if you believe the government will get this right. There are other ways to make healthcare affordable and no solutions should include our government running them. Do you really believe a governemnt who has allowed the medicare and medicaid systems to live on the edge of collapse can do better with national healthcare? Our government has proven that they can do anything but run something to failure on issues such as this.

You have no proof that it will provide long term savings yet you state just that. You who favor this type of policy in healthcare continually ignore that it has failed over and over again. No the healthcare system you are pining for is not the answer and never will be. Also, you may show some education in the way you write, but your need to show your elitist nature to those you respond to is rather boorish.

Really take a look at other countries who have the healthcare you are looking for here in America. It is more of a failure than our system of healthcare. Our system is superior in many ways. What we all should be fighting for is getting the lawyers out of the court rooms driving up the costs of healthcare.

You make this statement as if you believe the government will get this right. There are other ways to make healthcare affordable and no solutions should include our government running them. Do you really believe a governemnt who has allowed the medicare and medicaid systems to live on the edge of collapse can do better with national healthcare?

Actually, I didn't mean to imply I have absolute faith in the Federal Government's ability to get it right, but I do believe there's a better chance of properly restructuring healthcare now than at any other time since WWII. And I'm certain, based on what's occurred in the past 3 to 4 decades, that doing nothing is no longer an option. As for other ways of making healthcare affordable, I thought that was the a major part of the current plan. There's nothing in the bill as it now stands that even approaches a single-payer plan of the type used in other industrialized nations. With the exception of Japan's old "cradle-to-grave" worker compensation, which they've largely done away with, most nations never had the widespread employer provided healthcare that for a long time worked well in the U.S. On the other hand, setting up a government option to compete with private insurers will of course reduce costs across the board simply through competition. Granted, it would have to be limited to small business, the poor and the self-employed to not be taken advantage of by businesses large enough to provide private health insurance or private insurers would face unfair competition and that in itself brings a whole new set of problems. The "too big to fail" rationale would probably be addressed with yet another taxpayer funded bailout, which can lead to an endless boom-bust-bailout cycle. As for medicare/medicaid, those programs were never structured properly to begin with. They're set up to encourage doctors to order more tests, procedures, and hospitalizations so that doctors and drugmakers profit more than they could by stressing preventive care measures.

You have no proof that it will provide long term savings yet you state just that. You who favor this type of policy in healthcare continually ignore that it has failed over and over again. No the healthcare system you are pining for is not the answer and never will be.

No, I have no proof any more than you have proof it won't work. But due simply to the threat of possible government-run healthcare, major big Pharma companies recently agreed to an $80 billion dollar decrease in drug costs over the next ten years as well as promising to increase affordability for seniors, the poor and disabled. And Walmart, of all companies, now supports some form of government option! That's already a tangible savings that does support the current healthcare debate over potentially enormous long-term savings . If that much has already been accomplished merely by a potential future threat then what might the savings be from actual competition? You know full well neither of those developments would've occurred otherwise. And no, I can't prove that last statement either, because a negative can't be proven. But it seems to be common sense based on historical precedent so I think most people would agree. And I'm not sure what "type of policy" you think I'm "pining for", but I know of absolutely nothing similar to the current proposals that's even been tried before, let alone "failed over and over again".

I can point to one good analogy to the current "threat" of government action versus the actual action itself: in the early 80's a chemical was derived from the bark of ancient Yew trees in the temperate rainforests of the Northwest Coast and was used in a drug I believe is called Taxol; that drug was apparently the first truly effective treatment for breast cancer. Enviromentalists pointed out that the trees were several hundred years old (only the old growth bark produced the needed chemical), and were protected since they couldn't be replaced. A big controversy erupted in newspaper editorials- talk shows weren't so big then- over whether or not irreplaceable trees should be wiped out to benefit equally irreplaceable lives. The drug makers took no action to find substitutes or replacements for the making of Taxol, since given the pro-business climate of the "me" generation they saw little posibility of a threat to the source of their profits. Surprisingly, the EPA did manage to ban the cutting of the old growth trees, leaving big Pharma no source of the chemical needed for their drug to save lives. Within a year, a synthetic version was developed, the trees were saved, women had a real treatment for breast cancer and everyone was satisfied with the outcome. Afterwards, some of the most vocal conservative critics of government action ironically claimed they had been right all along; a replacement was found. What they never admitted was that their alternative would've simply delayed that particular scientific advance until none of the old growth Yews existed. Again, it's possible they were correct, but a negative can't be proven so we'll never know. What can be known is that with government action on the enviromental front, a seemingly unrelated medical advance was made.

You do, however, bring up some good points to be considered, but they seem to be couched in assumptions and generalizations for which you offer neither support nor proof, yet you criticize me for offering support for my positions, and proof in the form of historical precedent. By the way, I don't feel a need to show an "elitist nature" (though I'm not sure when being an "elite" became a bad thing), but by seeing that in others you do show yourself to be "rather boorish".

I am aware that the Constitution was designed to limit the size of the Federal Government and of Jefferson's intense dislike of having a strong national-level government. I'm also aware that, difficult or not, the Constitution was also specifically given enough flexibility to change with the changing nation envisioned. And the programs you mention aren't mentioned in the Constitution, but have been held to be within the scope of the original framework- remember that third branch of Federal government, The Supreme Court? The Court was designed to rule on whether or not a given law passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President- it's called checks and balances. And if states should decide whether or not to have such things as highways, electricity, a social safety net, etc, can't you just imagine the rush of population to the state(s) that offer the most? Living in Virginia, I'd surely be tempted to move elsewhere!

Dawn - nobody will be turned away for healthcare. But if they don't have insurance they will be charged more than insurance companies pay. Just because they don't turn you away doesn't mean it's free. My girlfriend lost her job and couldn't get insurance for ANY price because of chronic conditions that she was born with. She went to the emergency room on 3 occasions for life-threatening problems. Now she's 80K in debt to those emergency rooms, bankrupt, still can't work and is a ward of the state, continuing to cost us all money through no fault of her own. Her life is basically ruined. Had she been able to get insurance after losing her job she might now be a productive member of society. So if you had paid a little bit up front to cover her then, you would be saving a lot on her care right now. Let's hope the same thing doesn't happen to you.

And by the way, the government has never proposed to run healthcare. They will be administering insurance plans - fair ones that cover everyone.