I lived in England and their "free health care"? stinks. First of all you can forget a Dr.s appt. People were lined up in the street outside our towns "free" gov. provided Dr.s office. They were lined up because he only worked 4 hours a day. Sure you could show up and wait and wait and wait and it was free...... the office was dirty...but it was "free".

The "free" hospitals were even worse. The family I was staying with had a relative in the hospital with pneumonia. The patients were kept in long rooms with 25 beds in each room. No privacy, not clean, and very loud. The only thing I have ever seen like it was the hospital on the MASH tv show. Not pretty. I made a vow not to get hurt or sick while living there. Just last year another member of the family needed surgery for something, not cancer, but something that would have been taken care of within days here......they waited several months before they could move up the "list".

We can't take care of everyone. There isn't enough money or resources to go around. We can't all live to be 100. It stinks that some go without. It really stinks that the fatcat CEO's of the insurance compaies are millionaires, and deny claims with impunity.

I usually don't work overtime anymore because almost half of goes to the gov. Why should I work harder, so that we can give away free health care to illegals, and people who don't want to work at all?

There is no free lunch in life.

Go see the movie and see how it is with our major allies and notice that its pretty great how their system works, and see how convoluted and terrible ours is. I am not really going to argue the topic point by point with you, because I've learned how totally idiotic it is to arguing on the internet, but I reiterate you should go see the movie because it addresses most to all of your concerns.

First, do you really believe the movie does not have a bias and is skewed just a little. Everything we do has our own beliefs attached to it. Michael Moore's movies are no exception.

Secondly, I stated our system could be improved, but at what cost? Assuming you are in the top 50% of wage earners in this country, are you willing to pay more in taxes so that we have a universal health care system? Do you think it's fair that the same services may cost a person 3 times as much than the next person? For example, let's say you go to Longhorn's. Do you think you should pay twice as much for the same meal as the next person? Of course not. That would be insane. Yet, that is exactly how our current tax system works. So to add a universal health care system to the annual bill to taxpayers (top 50% of wage earners) is unacceptable to me.

Thirdly, what is it about Medicare that leads you to believe our government can manage a system 6-7 times larger than the current Medicare system? I just don't have that much faith in our government. Medicare and Social Security are a huge albatross that can't be sustained in it's current format without increasing taxes or cutting benefits. Now you're saying we can add a system with 6-7 times the number of people. Again, at what cost? What is it about our government that makes you think this can be accomplished without burdening only half of the country? Last I checked we were only guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere is health care a right. Just my two cents.

Excellent posts! But if you think you can talk any sense at all into teetaw or dollar you better make sure YOUR health insurance is up to date, particularly the care for stroke victims. The only mind changing going on will be the rupturing blood vessels in your skull.

Maximus

I don't want to try and put any words in your mouth, but I do have one question that would be helpful to me if you could answer.
Is it your intent to leave the system as it is then?

You need to re-read my post. I clearly stated that our system could be improved upon. I just don't think the government is the answer. When people start talking like that, it reminds me of a passage I read about the rise and fall of a Democracy (while the US was not intended to be a Democracy, it is what we have evolved into). The quote is as follows:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From Bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."

One of the key sentences is, "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."

That is exactly what is happening in our country. We have become so dependent on the government to solve all of our problems that we often take no responsibility for ourselves. That doesn't mean that we can't improve upon our current health care system. But again, more government is not the answer. We are quickly moving into the dependence phase which means our next step is bondage. Not a place I want to be.

Maybe wealthy people should pay more for an expensive steak than a poor person?
Health care is different. It is uncivil to allow someone to suffer when it can be stopped.
It is a historical fact that we will always have the poor with us for whatever reason. To say they deserve to suffer because they weren't as aggressive as we were is wrong.
Your circle of progress leaves no way out, does it? Those that have want it to remain wherever it is.

I never said the poor should suffer so don't go implying I did. The poor in our country have health insurance. It's called Medicaid. Based on my experience, we have many in this country (and yes, right in our own back yards) who go without health insurance because they say they can't afford it. Yet, they live in a $250k house, drive $60k worth of automobiles, eat out 3 times a week, have cell phones, cable, internet, etc. It's not that that person can't afford it. It's that they aren't willing to sacrifice any of their luxuries to pay for it. Then they gripe and complain about the system. How about we have an even playing field? How about we all pay the same percentage of our income in taxes? What's wrong with that idea? Whether you make $30,000 or $300,000, let those people pay the same percentage. The one that makes more still pays more, but isn't burdened with picking up the entire bill of the federal government. That way everyone pays into the system. Not just half of us.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any idea what it takes for a person to be in the top 50% of wage earners in this country? It's not a lot. Here's a link so you can see for yourself. No since in taking my word for it.

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

No one has yet to explain to me what it is about our government that makes you think they would be efficient at running a nationwide health plan.