I'm trying to think through this issue on my own, quite independently of "conservative" or "liberal" policies or principles.

Did you read my comment below? In essence, I am wondering how health choices would be impacted were, as you put it, "government health insurance" were implemented.

In my opinion, it would have been tragic had either I or my wife been locked in--HMO style--to the local Fayette doctors and facilities. What reason have we for thinking that the best health care will be a genuinely accessible option as it has been for us?

At present, my 18-month-old granddaughter is not covered under any health plan. I certainly feel the tug in the direction of seeing to it that she is covered. But I don't see my way through to the other side of any of the proposed plans out there. Help me out.

My married daughter has no health insurance whatsoever as her husband's current work does not provide for it and they cannot afford the premiums She has lately experienced some worrisome symptoms that have her wanting to see a doctor, but she is afraid that if something serious is discovered she will then be ineligible for health insurance. I'm shopping around, trying to find her some affordable health insurance.

This concern causes me to give ear to those urging universal health care.

On the other hand, my wife has just come through a very serious illness. I took her to the ER at the local hospital where she was admitted and kept several days. It soon became apparent that this hospital was incapable of providing the care she needed. Indeed, I believe her condition worsened while there because this hospital mismanaged her care. I insisted that she be transported to Emory. Though my insurance company initially balked at paying for Emory (they wanted us at the downtown Piedmont), they agreed to it, and she received the care she needed. I cannot say enough good things about the world class medical care provided at Emory.

ANother story. I was diagnosed with prostate cancer two years ago this month. The Fayette urologist who diagnosed me wanted to do a prostatectomy, which would have been performed at Fayette Piedmont.
I spent two months in research on the cancer and its treatments. I learned that one can count on one's fingers the number of genuine centers of excellence in the country where prostate cancer is treated. (If you are ever diagnosed, don't necessarily yield to the knife of the urologist who happens to have a practice down the street!) I found one of them (RCOG in Decatur--a kin of mecca for prostate cancer treatment) and was treated there. My insurance paid for it.

I wonder whether socialized health care would have made it possible for my wife and me to have made these possibly lifesaving choices. Would we have had to settle for substandard care (i.e., Fayette Piedmont) rather than state-of-the-art care (i.e., Emory and RCOG)?

well, of course i'll be civil. i think if you go and read tony f.'s comments, you'll know what the f. stands for. he's a real sweetheart, i just don't really think he should be allowed to breed.

i completely understand that they think it will cover too many people...and it's not that they don't know how many extra it will cover. they estimate that about 33% of the recipients could afford their own insurance. my problem with it is that instead of approving an extra 1 out of 3 people, we would say no to it completely. instead of offering a compromise. even some republicans were on board! it was 273 in favor and 156 opposed, obviously falling short of the 2/3 vote.

i agree that we need to defend our country, but my moot point is a valid one...we didn't defend anything, we listened to faulty intelligence, the democrats rolled over, and pre-emptively struck against someone who did not make an aggressive act. saying that we're defending our country is like if you were beat up someone whom you thought might one try to hurt you in some way,though they had not as of yet. this is also something that we cannot be victorious in. sorry, we can't. you can't expect to kill and torture people and then expect the next generation in that country to love us. i'd argue that we're creating future wars as we speak,but that's a moot point.

the constitution doesn't say that we ought to provide free care to anyone...it's just my personal conviction as a moral human being to help people, especially kids...tell me it's wrong. just say "no, providing healthcare to underprivelaged kids is the wrong thing to do" and we will have nothing more to discuss.

honestly, i don't really care for clinton part 2...i think she's too calculated...but socialized healthcare works well in some places. some systems are better than others...but regardless of what's next in health care, i think that what we have right now is certainly too expensive. when people can no longer afford to survive, i think it's time to take a close look at the system. i worked at a health care company for a few years. i watched kids lose their insurance because it was costing the insurance company approximately 6,000$ a week to keep these kids alive. now that tells me a few things, mainly that healthcare is too expensive...secondly, insurance companies are just businesses who don't care whether or not you live or die, they're just like every other business, it's about the bottom line.

oh well, i need to get off this computer.

Your comments this morning made me chuckle-thanks!

I was reading your post and I think that I strayed from the point with the issue of Iraq. So, we can just stick to healthcare for the sake of brevity.

I don't think that helping poor people (especially kids) is a bad idea. I just don't think that our government is the answer. This may sound familiar if you read my post to d.smith700, but at least I am consistent. My concern is that this program will swell beyond its intended size and keep us on a path to socialism. Again it comes down to dollars and cents and increased taxation. I think that tort reform is a better answer than increased regulation.

Since you are a former medical professional, do you think that the cost of healthcare has been unduly influenced by insurance companies and limits on medical research by over zealous attorneys? It wasn't always this expensive.

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

You are not "conservative," you are selfish!
To obtain the same quality of care for major medical, dental and eye care that is currently furnished by the program, would cost approximately $11,000 per year.
Are you saying that the new upper earnings limit proposed could afford that much for health insurance only? Of course not, and you know it.
How much out of your pocket do YOU currently pay? Bet your employer pays most of it. At the lower wage scales, they do not pay health insurance that is beneficial. You obviously also don't make 40k!
As to the war: Adolph Hitler violated no German law either! Also once he started the war in Poland and England, he had to finish it as you suggest Bush must do! He also tortured!
Invoking the name of Senator Clinton as "Hillary care" or government insurance, is a threat only and you know that also.
Medicare does pretty well with our old folks, they can do the same with our poor youngsters. It doesn't promote self improvement to raise an unhealthy kid!

You don't know me so don't call me selfish. You have no idea the time or money that I spend toward charitable endeavors. You speak of fair when your statement suggests otherwise. I have not attacked anyone on here personally, only ideas. I do like to hear an opposing view, so thank you for your view.

As for the question on "Hillary care", the answer is simple. It is her plan. It is (in essence) the same plan proposed by former President Clinton's administration with a few tweaks. But your question is a good one. Why does it scare me? It is the government. Our government is often well intentioned, but rarely well managed. The entitlement programs that our government offers cover most of our budget. That is not my opinion, it is per the OCBM. As history shows, the government is a poor fiscal steward. Even the most recent entitlement is already over budget and bloated with excess spending. I am referring to President Bush's prescription drug program. I AM a conservative, not a Republican. To be fair, the Republican Party generally is closer to my beliefs than the Democrats. However, I was not pleased with Mr. Bush when he signed that bill into law.

My objection boils down to dollars and cents. I am still in my 30s and will hopefully be able to work for many more years. As the Baby Boomer generation grows to retirement, my tax dollars need to stretch further. The cost of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc are going to increase as the Boomers will outnumber those in the workforce. I would like to believe that there is a solution to this problem that does not involve raising taxes, but history in points the other direction.

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

Health care; What about universal heath care scares you so much? The private sector clearly has not been able to provide it. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution about private insurance but there are certainly references to providing for the general welfare. Why are you so upset by the idea that someone would pay the government for health care instead of paying a private insurance company? I assume you are opposed to Medicare also. I think most Americans would be very happy to have a Medicare system available to everyone. As to the expansion of "SCHIP", I do not think that President Bush has any idea how difficult it is for many working families to provide decent health care for their children. Being the spoiled son in a rich family, he has not a clue.

Constitutionality: Read the Constitution. The Congress is given the power to declare war. The power to invade a country which has not threatened the United States is not given to the President as Commander in Chief. And when the President lies and deceives the Congress and the country to justify such military action, he has failed in his oath to defend this country and its Constitution. A true conservative would want to restrain such power by the executive.

Lion, you are right. Only the Congress has the authority to declare war. Hence the memorable words of FDR when he asked Congress to declare war on the Empire of Japan. However, the President is the CINC and therefore in charge of the military. The president has the authority to act in a military capacity other than a declared state of war.

As far as the supposed lie goes, I just can't buy it. A lie is only a lie if you know it to be so. For example, if you were raised that the sky was green you would believe that what we call blue was green. Would that be a lie? No. It would be wrong but not a lie. When you see that Russia, Great Britain, France and Israel all had about the same intelligence on Iraq it is easy to see how the Administration came to their conclusions. Were they wrong? Yes. Were they lying? No.

As for the health care, I don't want to re-hash that again. But, you are right. No one who has held the White House in a while knows what a working family goes through just to pay the bills, much less get ahead. This is not isolated to President Bush. Let us not red-state/blue-state this kind of stuff to death. Let’s examine the problems and come up with a solution that is good for the country, not the Party.

What would your solution be?

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.