"In a civilized society we have an obligation to look after the less fortunate, the people who can’t afford to pay tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills. (Which is a lot of people, by the way.)"

I would agree with this statement but, this is a personal opinion. The problem with liberals is that they foist their personal opinions on others via the government. Personally, I believe we should take care of the poor. That's why I make donations to private charities (conservatives donate more to charity than liberals do, see the recent study by Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks). However, I think the government is a poor vehicle for helping the poor, it's inefficient and wasteful.

Socialized "Universal" healthcare is wasteful and wrong, by pursuing it you are asking me (as a taxpayer) to foot the bill for your personal project driven by your feeling of a civic duty to provide healthcare to everyone. Let's help the poor together through charities and private means, not ineffective, inefficient, bloated government programs that we force on the general populace.

Chris, you're missing the point. Whether you are a skeptic or not, we are in fact contributing to climate change. The energy industry spends millions of dollars in propaganda to convince people that we are not. Yes, the earth goes through cycles, but the data is clear that we are going through unprecedented change, not to mention the number of species that are going extinct. I never said throwing money at it will help. We need to consume less energy, plain and simple, and one way to do that is to provide economic incentives.

Congratulations on being covered by your employer and not getting sick that often. But a lot of people aren't covered, and DO get sick a lot and they need to be helped.

Brandon- Private charities do a lot of good but people still fall through the cracks. Yes, a life-threatening illness can be treated and must be here, but it will bury you in debt. No charity program is going to foot an 80,000 dollar medical bill.

Don't lump all liberals together- you know damn well that I'm only liberal one some issues. I could easily say that the problem with conservatives is that they think everything is perfectly fine, and if not, it's just too damn expensive to do anything about.

That Syracuse study included tithing, so it greatly imbalances the equation.

Socialized medicine is not inherently wrong- most of the civilized world has already gone ahead with it. It's not a personal project. Am I asking you to "foot the bill" so that every American can live a healthy lifestyle without sinking into poverty? Um, yes.

Tim, if you are intelligent enough to point out that "The energy industry spends millions of dollars in propaganda to convince people that we are not" affecting the environment, then I would ask if you are also willing to accept the fact that people like Al Gore and GE stand to make a profit off of the global warming hype, that's all...let's be fair here, both sides stand to make money off of what the general public "believes".

@ torbjorn rive: wow, character assault much?

I'm not against helping people, nobody is. That's a trite and illogical argument you countered with.

I am against ineffective use and allocation of resources. Charities who CARE and are PASSIONATE are much better at taking care of those who need help, not common, "selfish", independent taxpayers en masse. I'm not trying to be ungenerous, I just know who and what can do it better than me and all my taxpayer friends.

Thoughts on the autonomy issue, anyone? Or the proof we already have in the VA system that the government will be unable to provide effective and quality care?

Tim,

Take a deep breath, put down the strawman, and explain how state-run healthcare, which you admit would be costly and require higher taxes, is free? You should spend less time moralizing and more time researching.

Anna,

You are 100% correct. Healthcare is not a right. Nothing can be a right that needs to be provided by someone else. You have no right to doctor's time and labor. You have no right to your neighbors time and labor. They aren't slaves. If anything here is immoral, it's the idea that one individual needs to pay for the poor health choices of another individual. What's immoral is Tim foisting his morality on others. I wonder what his response would be to an Evangelical trying to legislate his life according to their moral code. I fully expect apoplectic fits with no sense of irony.

Tim,

"socialized medicine is not inherently wrong"

According to you and your moral code, which I don't share. Stop trying to push your morality onto other people.

Torbjorn,

"you’re a great man because you think like a Canadian"

I dunno. The Canadians I've met have been quite a bit more rational.

"“the govt is controlling us” element, a mindset that has been around since the Cold War."

What?? Are you kidding? Pick up a history book, the idea of laissez-faire social system is quite a bit older than the cold war.

"you’re doing something to help someone else (god forbid) against your own will"

Spoken like a bully. Typical indeed. You have a lot of nerve reprimanding Anna because she bristles at the idea of being told to act against her will. What right do you have over her life or anyone else's? By what moral code do you decide how people should live their lives? Why should she act against her will? Because you know better? I see no indication of that.

Torbjorn,

Actually, arguing is something you may want to try.

"Anna - “footing the bill” - such a typical response. So scared that maybe, just maybe, you’re doing something to help someone else (god forbid) against your own will."

That's not an argument, it's a potshot.

"Attacking a philosophy is arguing. Not a ‘potshot’. "

Don't flatter yourself. The implication of your comment is very clear that Anna may be fearful of helping people and that such help would be against her will. Of course you have no idea what her proclivity to help people is, it just doesn't match your version of government mandated 'help'. Rather than address her concerns for retaining individual autonomy, you try to cast her as a misanthrope.

Boo.

Tim,

First, "the idea that people who need coverage make poor health choices " is not what I said. You're misrepresenting my argument. Some people make poor health choices and they should not force other people to pay for them. Care to argue that? It's not the same as what you claim I said (that people who don't have health care make poor health choices). You know, like all dogs are quadrupeds but not all quadrupeds are dogs?

Second, do you feel the same way about people picking themselves up and paying for anything else they consume, or just medical expenses? Coffee, shoes, education, food, shelter, furniture...

Third, I'm not sure if you are being dishonest or are just confused. Are you now arguing that you would be happy to pay for other people's medical expenses because you personally believe it's moral but you wouldn't force other people to? Or you still would force people to abide by your morality but you think it's OK because it's your morality? If I believe it isn't right, do I have the choice to opt out of the system you propose, or am I forced to comply? What if I don't share your faith? Some faiths don't even believe in medical care at all. You and I may call that crazy, but it's their faith, who are we to impose?

I don't think I misrepresented your argument. You're trying to say that because a few people make poor health choices that nobody should have to contribute to nationlized healthcare, and that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I never said anyone should pay for coffee or shoes. Free education, for your information, is not some socialist fantasy, it's something that George Washington believed was absolutely necessary to maintain a healthy democracy.

We have a right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A right to LIFE means that we have an obligation to protect people from the threat of redcoats, and from disease.

I'm not being ambiguous, here. In the civilized world, everyone has to pay taxes in order to improve the lot of the common good. If you don't believe in that, then you don't have to. Just stop paying your taxes, and you can write a letter to the government explaining that you don't want any of your money going towards programs that you don't believe in. You don't need to share my faith- you need to be a citizen of this country, which means you have to CONTRIBUTE to social programs, whether you like it or not.

@Milena, you're assuming that your taxes are going to skyrocket. It's entirely possible to have universal healthcare in this country without that. There is more than enough money- we just shift our resources. Like maybe not spending half the GDP on defense, and putting some of that towards education and healthcare.

I think your vision of socialized medicine is not informed by reality. In Europe and Canada they are not being buried in taxes, and their standards of living are doing just fine.

The reason that programs like welfare exist is because too many people are selectively moral. They donate to people and programs they believe in, while the rest are left out in the cold.

Chris, America is great and we are all lucky that we don't live in China or Russia. But there is always room for improvement. The hysteria that the prospect of universal healthcare provokes is rooted in some deep-seeded Cold War era fear of anything and everything that can be compared to socialism. (I'm opposed to social security, for the record.)

The nations that last the longest are willing to embrace change. China, with all its flaws, has been around for 5,000 years because they have always been willing to do things differently. It's a lesson we can stand to learn from.

@Tim - I'm not assuming my taxes will skyrocket. I'm against the principle.

Here's the major issue...

Universal Healthcare isn't the solution to the problem, and specifically not the only solution.

We don't need another government program - they interact poorly with companies that like money: for example, what does guaranteeing federal loans do? Drive up college costs to the point of being ridiculous. Sure, you're helping poorer people attend college, but let's think back to when college was only five grand a year... is it better to let college cost 5 grand a year, and some extremely poor people (easily helped by private scholarships) would have some challenges, or let college costs get up to 15 to 30 grand a year, saddling even the middle class with debt?

Likewise, costs in healthcare will get driven up by government interference. I'm talking about personal costs, and not just taxes.

But the solution also isn't throwing everything to the free market - that's also a mess.

What we really need is strong regulation, and personal control of health insurance. For example, if you're signed up with a program through an employer, you should be able to take that insurance with you to your next job, provided you pay exactly what your employer paid. We should be making it much more difficult for an insurer to drop you; if they reap the benefit of your young and healthy years, they should be able to balance that out with when you are old or sick.

We also need stronger regulation of hospital pricing. It might help to have the government covering overhead costs for non-profit hospitals, so they can't justify charging $25 for a band-aid. Financially, the hospitals are broken, which is the biggest problem.

Finally, all "basic" healthcare plans should include preventative care at a strikingly lower deductible than catastrophic. By separating these two types of care, we can prevent many more illnesses that would become more costly if put off.

This is a wonderful strange disagreement between liberals and conservatives. It seems that conservative religious folks have the most to lose from abusing the planet considering it was God's gift to man, and he ordered him to keep it and dress it (check out Genesis 1 and 2 if you don't believe me). I always thought global warming should be an easy one, because whether you believe that the world is warming or not, you still should protect the environment. But hey, maybe they (we?) aren't as Bible thumping as I thought.

As for universal health care, I think this goes along with the abortion/but not welfare debate. While conservatives (the religious ones) claim to care about people, they only care about them until they are born. Otherwise, how can you not support young mothers better than you do, and create a system that rewards inaction. If you want, I will go into the "welfare" system if you disagree.

I will admit that I oppose universal healthcare for purely selfish reasons. Quite frankly, I am tired of paying so many taxes, and I happen to have excellent healthcare coverage. Now as I student I got a little SOL with my healthcare, but fortunately I got a great summer job that paid about 30K and I was able to put that bill in the dust (it was over a thousand dollars with ambulance fees and the like). However, because of my realization that my opposition to universal healthcare is selfish, I will go along with it, for those who aren't as fortunate as me, because I really am a Christian.

I also support global warming initiatives. While I believe in the Christian teachings about the end of the world, I also believe in Genesis. And I honestly can't understand why far more liberals who claim religon don't also come to this conclusion.

@Tim - yeah, Brazen really got it wrong with the title, it implies something different than intended.

Beth- YOU ARE BEING RIDICULOUS! Once again, why the F*** is it that liberals consistently ONLY HEAR what they want to freakin hear!? i have read back through the comments and NO WHERE did a conservative say anything about not caring for the environment or "abusing" it. Grow the hell up and stop putting words in our mouths, matter of fact I believe I made it a point to say, wait let me quote myself here (how bad is it when you have to quote yourself for an argument..asses) "When it comes to global warming, you can’t find me one skeptic of global warming, including myself, that does NOT feel that we shouldn’t take care of the earth God gave us. I don’t litter, smoke or drive too many places. I recycle, reuse and conserve as much as possible. Those have nothing to do with global warming if you are a skeptic."

Jesus people, that was the first damn comment! As to your religious "bible thumping" comment, I am christian but not even a hardcore one. The mistake that people like, Obama for instance, make when they say that "they cling to their guns and religion..." is so outrageously out in left field that it makes you wonder if his church going is for political poster ethics ONLY. NO, I cling to my religion through the good times just as much through the bad, those that only cling during the bad are falsely using their "God" I thank him for everything I have.

I cling to my guns because that is a 2nd Amendment right and if someone breaks into my house I will put a hole in their head and SHOULDN'T fear that if I even present any arms will I get sued by the would-be crook, this country needs to wake the hell up!

WOW!!!! I get trying to be edgy and controversial in blogs, but this is pretty harsh.

Let me give you a different perspective. My family owns an engineering firm and has always offered a great healthcare plan. Guess what 50% of people do? They CHOOSE not to enroll in it!!! They'd rather use the money to buy cigarettes/beer/fast food, etc. So, no, I don't want to use MY money to pay for the abundance of people that CHOOSE not to get healthcare insurance.

These people who opt out of getting available insurance are included in the numbers touted by the left wing.

On the other hand, YES, I believe we should help the less fortunate, but we also have to correct our current system. Out current welfare system is a joke and is abused constantly. I fear a national healthcare mandate because it will likely be as poorly run as the current welfare system is.

And as for climate change...I'll think about that for a while while I sip my coffee out of my styrofoam cup.

@Tim & Kyle - I think using the term "social darwin" is meant to shut people up and make them feel small. Emotional tactics are fun and make this blog interesting, but they are unkind and don't get anyone closer to understanding. I don't appreciate the labels.

Also, for the record: I don't worship money. I don't want poor people to suffer without access to care. I'm not sure how many more times I have to say that for it to be clear. No matter how many times I am accused of it, does not make it true.

Did I call you names for wanting universal healthcare? No, I just oppose your ideas, which I should be allowed to do without name-calling.

And Tim - I do appreciate you agreeing, "if you don’t want to pay and not get coverage, that’s your decision, and that is moral."

Universal healthcare, at least from how I understand it, doesn't offer such a choice. Are you revising your opinion?

Tim--

Honest question: why did you (evidently) let your insurance lapse? Even part-time students have myriad choices for health insurance. I see parttime students in IL can get basic insurance for under $50 a month.

I believe you wrote before that you wouldn't mind spending $1,200 a year in increased taxes for socialized health coverage. Wouldn't private insurance been far cheaper for you in your situation?

@ Jonathan E- my insurance lapsed because my coverage was dependent on my being a full-time student. I dropped a few classes because I was coping with a medical issue that (surprise) my insurance didn't cover: anxiety attacks. Once I became a part-time student, I was completely dropped from coverage. The timing was sensational, because 2 weeks later my appendix nearly burst.

I would be more than happy to pay 1200 more in taxes because my current insurance plan (in addition of costing 85 dollars a month) has a 5,000 dollar deductible. So no, private insurance really isn't a cheaper alternative.

@ Michael- do you see little Stalin ghosts under your bed at night? Not every social program is a nightmare. The last I checked, our military is also a social enterprise, paid for entirely by tax dollars.

If you want to take care of yourself, that's fine. But the millions of American's who can't afford to shouldn't suffer for it.

What is so scary about socialism? Are we afraid of becoming a distopian, 1984esque society like Sweden?

I am not advocating socialism. I don't like social security. I think it's perfectly fine to have a capitolist society, but healthcare should be something that is considered above the realms and the whims of the "free" market.

Bill- my girlfriend said the same thing. You two should get together, maybe. HA

@Kyle - I understand. I think the term is more often used as a put-down, so that's why I reacted.

@Tim - again did you revise your opinion? From above comment, I'm dying to know.

I'm also doubtful Michael sees images of Stalin. Why are you bent on diminishing people when they disagree with you?

What he probably sees is mounting evidence that small steps towards socialist policies are compounding, pushing our fine country further and further towards a welfare state. Moody's (an investment grading firm) is planning to downgrade US credit if we don't fix our dismal fiscal policies. Implementing things like universal healthcare will only inch us closer to stretching an already bloated system. I know you'll mention the war again. I've already covered my feelings on that in myriad other places on this website. Let's stick with universal health care. It's not good for this country.

My fear is that the solution you propose, which I completely understand comes from you wanting to help those in need, would not work. I don’t believe care would be better. I don’t believe care would be accessible to everyone in a timely manner. I believe the ability for people to choose how and when they are treated would be severely limited.

If you do a search on Google, “Canadian Health Crisis” you will find a plethora of tales of how the Canadian system (70% public, 30% private) is still failing its constituents. You will read about them being subjected to lower quality care and much longer wait times for critical or complex procedures. You will read about complete lack of incentive to improve health care processes and technology without a sufficient market mechanism. Innovation will dry up.

@Tim

Lol, not Stalin ghosts, because he wasn't just socialist but he was a nasty dictator as well, and I don't think America has to worry about that yet. No matter what people think about Bush, he certainly hasn't killed millions of his own citizens.

What does disturb me is that people are falling back into the same system of socialist thinking without considering the dangers. I can't think of any reason a government bureaucracy in charge of universal health care which would not be motivated to be responsible with money (which would be coming from our pockets) or efficient in dealing with the problems of those who are sick (which would obviously affect all of us personally at some point or another). Look at DMV's, another government bureau, which deals with large quantities of people who can't go anywhere else. I've never heard anyone say anything positive about the quality or speed of the service. Insurance companies and hospitals may not be perfect, but at least they do have the motivation to be better than the competition, and that's something that no government bureau I've ever had experience with has been motivated to do.

For me it's all about efficiency and having options. Universal health care is unlikely to be different than any other government bureau. It would be very inefficient with money, inefficient with customer service. That's just the way it is when you're talking about government operations that have no incentive to be profitable because they're just going to be funded with as much money as they need no matter what. A reformed private health care system would be a much better use of resources than a government system. That's my opinion anyway.

Wow,no one curses at me. On a blog, that is craziness!

I am not a liberal, so Chris Ford you can save your liberal smashing for some other time. I was making general observations about the behavivor of Christians, the same people who cling to conservatism, and how I believe that they miss the mark on the religious message. I happen to be an uber-conservative Christian and a fiscal conservative. But this is a debate that needs to be had, especially after my liberal friend who is not Christian sent me a link to the movie about a Jesus/Bible camp. We as a religous voting block have got to do better and be more engaged in the issues.

And, I can be honest, like Tim, and admit that I have personal bias. Do I like his generalized approach? I find it a bit of a flame. But hey, he is trying to generate interest, so go hard or go home!

I think a better attack on government healthcare is that it should not be government run because the government, at least for sure the federal one, is inefficient. And Massachusetts is having a really hard time. This is a much more honest debate. Then, the other side: But then, look at the health care systems current available, and as the federal government doesn't run them either, and probably won't run it under Obama, because despite the scandal, the VA for example has some of the best doctors in the nation and generally very good outcomes. So maybe there won't be a FEMA repeat.

By ROBERT M. GOLDBERG
IRONICALLY enough, the dangers of the liberal health-care agenda are being made clear by the care that a liberal icon, Sen. Ted Kennedy, has received since his brain seizure last month.
One day after an MRI detected a tumor, Kennedy was quickly diagnosed with a malignant glioma - a rare and often-fatal form of brain cancer. Less than two weeks later, his tumor was being removed by one of the world's experts in brain cancer at Duke University Medical Center. He'll follow up with chemo and radiation therapy tailored to the genetic makeup of his cancer to keep the cancer from spreading.
He'll likely take Avastin, a drug that in experiments with brain cancer has extended survival by months. A new cancer vaccine being developed in partnership with Pfizer could extend his life by six years.
Of course, with his wealth and power, Kennedy would get good treatment anywhere. But the same care is available to every American.
Not so - if we make the health "reforms" called for by Kennedy and other liberals.
Filmmaker Michael Moore gives their standard line when he says: "There are problems in all health-care systems, but at least Europeans and Canadians have a health-care system that covers everyone."
The Problem is, governments that promise to "cover everyone" always wind up cutting corners simply to save money. People with Kennedy's condition are dying or dead as a result.
Consider Jennifer Bell of Norwich, England. In 2006, the 22-year-old complained of headaches for months - but Britain's National Health Service made her wait a year to see a neurologist.
Then she had to wait more than three months before should could get what the NHS decided was only a "relatively urgent" MRI scan. Three days before the MRI appointment, she died.
Consider, too, the chemo drug Kennedy is receiving: Temodar, the first oral medicine for brain tumors in 25 years.
Temodar has been widely used in this country since the FDA approved it in 2000. But a British health-care rationing agency, the National Institute for Comparative Effectiveness, ruled that, while the drug helps people live longer, it wasn't worth the money - and denied coverage for it.
Barack Obama - and other Democrats - have been pushing a Senate bill to set up a similar US "review board" for Medicare and any future government health-care plan.
After denying this treatment completely for seven years, the NICE (did whoever named it intend the irony?) relented - partly. Even today, only a handful of Brits with brain tumors can get Temodar.
And if you want to pay for Temodar out of your own pocket, the British system forces you to pay for all of your cancer care - about $30,000 a month.
Things are no different in Canada, where the wait for an MRI (once you finally get a referral) has grown to 10 weeks. For Canadians relying on their government health care, the average wait time from diagnosis of cancer to surgery is beyond the guideline set by both the US and European societies for surgical oncology.
And HealthCanada, the government system, similar refuses to pay for treatments that are often covered in America.
Chad Curley, a 37-year-old auto worker from Windsor, Ontario, had a brain tumor like Kennedy's but can't have surgery because his is too large to be operable.
His tumor didn't respond to Temodar and the same doctors now treating Sen. Kennedy told him and his wife that the Avastin combination could stop his tumor from growing and add months to his life. But HealthCanada wouldn't pay to use Avastin to treat his tumor.
Chad's family and friends scraped together the $5,000 for the first round of treatment in mid-November; they later saw Chad's left-side paralysis start to subside. But the money ran out - and he died on Feb. 21.
In pushing for government-run health care, liberals are pushing for a system where only the Ted Kennedys of the world can get cutting-edge - and life-saving - care.
Robert M. Goldberg is vice president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest. bobgoldberg@yahoo.com

Health and Life Insurance for Texans

www.InsureMeDFW.com

OK, well, I'm quite surprised no one here has mentioned PT's own Wisconsin and its proposed so-called "single payer" universal health care plan.

An estimated cost (estimated by the Democratic legislature itself!) of $15.2 billion per year. Payable by a new 15.4% increase in payroll taxes, it would increase the average Badger State citizens' taxes by $510 per month.

Maybe this is the model for Obamacare. That's change you can believe in!

Beth- I cursed out of frustration and not directly at you, sorry if you took it that way but obviously didn't read through and find people saying those things about abusing the environment on purpose or not taking care of the earth.

I think what people here are failing to realize is the fact that the Universal Healthcare plans that are being proposed are NOT opt-out in any way. There is no way that the taxes that would be affected would only have an effect on those WITH UHC. Are you going to walk into a store and say "Oh no, that's not the price I will be paying on that, I have my own health insurance so you can take off that extra 11% please...hehe" A tax is a tax and is enforced on the public as a whole, there is no getting around this.

How dare you claim that your beliefs are in line with what America's founder fathers had in mind when the ideas are in fact diametrically OPPOSED to what they felt was for the best?!

FYI, America was founded on the prospects of LOW TAXES, SMALL GOVERNMENT, and PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, qualities that socialist health care contradicts.

By the way; you're absolutely correct that I care more about money than other people and you know what, that's my RIGHT; I am not nor should I be responsible for anyone other than myself.

@Vanessa - I'm guessing you didn't Google "Canadian Health(care) Crisis."

Here's a link to start with.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html

If you did, you might have come across a story about man who became addicted to painkillers waiting over a year to have a hip replacement surgery performed and the Canadian government wouldn't allow him to pay more to have it done privately!. That is cruel and unusual punishment by anyone's definition. There are a lot more problems, in my estimation, that are far worse than the current, and as you accurately point out, flawed system.

Who is yelling fire in a crowded theater? That isn’t at all analogous to what I'm doing. I'm having a rational discussion about what constitutes individual rights. Furthermore, there is no trouble finding a system, it is outlined in the above comment. Just because no one happens to be following it is not my concern.

I understand your concern about “free will without limits.” I didn’t mean lawlessness, which I’m guessing is how you perceived it? With that in mind, can you explain how following your own self interests is detrimental to society? So long as others respect individual rights (protected by law and the proper limitation of free will), there shouldn’t be any problem. For example, free will doesn’t mean I now have a right to harm someone or steal their money - that is infringing upon them. I don’t get to do that.

Similarly, you cannot take my money for universal health care, spending it on a program that I might deem ineffective. This is the free will I’m talking about.

I believe helping your fellow man is the right thing to do. I don’t believe UHC is the best way to do it.

I hope you understand I’m sincerely trying to add to the conversation, not yell “fire.” I feel that is a put down which detracts from understanding each other.

Oh I decided to forgo getting my soul removed, but I did decide to have a bleedingheartectomy. Fifteen years later and I'm calmer, wiser, and my wallet has never been fuller!

@Milena Thomas I did read the story about the Canadian Health Crisis. But abuses like the ones found in that story happen everyday under our current system; they just aren't covered in the news.

My example of fire in a crowded theater is not a put down. It's a well-known example used in a Supreme Court case that showed that the right to free speech isn't infinite. Liberty needs some limitations if it is to operate in society.

My version of UHC would compel everyone to contribute because it's the only way to drive down costs enough. I think that you would have to stipulate that people could pay for additional coverage to expedite processes. I also think that everyone cites the Canada example when it has very fatal flaws. There are several other countries in the world with universal health care that works better than Canada's system.

When I said free will without limits, I didn't mean lawlessness. What I read from your comment was that you seem to believe that there is a way to have complete liberty in society save for obvious restrictions on not physically harming someone and taking your property.

As for your comment about taking your money and spending it on a program that you deem ineffective, I think that this is already occurring. I don't know for sure, but I imagine you don't approve of everything that the government spends your tax dollars on.

I hope that you understand that I am genuinely trying to add to the conversation as well. For me, UHC is not about helping my fellow man. I think that it is a genuinely necessary public good like infrastructure as Jason stated above. For more details about why I think UHC is necessary, see my first comment on this post.

Thanks.

@Vanessa -

For the second time, your example of fire in a crowded theater is not what I'm doing, so whether or not it's from a famous case is irrelevant.

In my comment I already agreed with you that the current system is ineffective. I feel UHC would be even more ineffective.

Thanks for offering your point of view. I've read all your comments and have visited your blog. You clearly are intelligent, experienced, and have well thought-out reasons for your positions.

I respectfully reserve the right to disagree with you.

I'm neither immoral nor in support of universal healthcare. I agree that the healthcare system in the US is messed up, and you're completely correct in saying that no one can afford to get sick nowadays.

I think this calls for a complete reform of the healthcare system, though. Big government is always inefficient (look at social security!!) and will likely make even more of a mess with our healthcare system if allowed. Personally, I think the solution is going to be to take health insurance off the table entirely and go back to the way it used to be before health insurance companies started making billions off the backs of the ill.

@Vanessa -

While we're talking court cases, let's see what Canada has done to improve it's socialized program. Privatize. Offer choice. Who knew.

"Ironically, as the U.S. government has restricted the ability of patients to spend their own money on medical care, Canada's socialized health care system is moving in the opposite direction. In a landmark case handed down in 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the province of Quebec could not prohibit its citizens from purchasing covered services through private health insurance. That ruling recognized that imposing limits on a patient's freedom to spend his own money can result in his being denied crucial and even life-saving medical services."

The freedom to choose had been severely limited in Canada. We should not move towards such a system. I am not yelling fire, but attempting to reveal in a calm and rational manner the errors of UHC, and what the proper meaning of individual rights are.

@Erika - You are right. And healthcare reform starts with tax reform. Some great reading material can be found here:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb109/hb_109-7.pdf

I'm actually quite happy to see here that not all GenY'ers support socialized healthcare.

BTW, here's a nifty look at our "universal health" future: In France, an organ donor wasn't quite dead yet:

http://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/2008/06/10/le-donneur-d-organes-n...

When my pops needed medical care for cancer, twice, he went to the US to get private care, twice. Seattle and Boston respectively. Not Canada - as much as I do praise our health system here.

I would probably do the same, in theory.

@Imon and @Tim

Imon raises a point about basic insurance theory. Tim, you appear to think that a $5,000 deductible for your private insurance would make socialized health a better deal for you.

Deductibles exist for a reason: they reduce the effects of both "moral hazard" and "morale hazard", or the ability of insureds to take extra advantage of insurance, or perhaps even bilk insurers, since they have no money on the line themselves.

Deductibles also decrease the number of unneeded or frivolous claims, keeping rates low for all.

If you are a fat bastard killing the restaurant at the all-you-can-eat-bar, that restaurant's not gonna last. Ask Sizzler.

OK, Tim, since you won't pull your own head out of your ass, stop with the ad hominem attacks and deal with a rational debate, I'm done, too.

You'll get the health care plan you deserve.

@Vanessa and Milena - Your dialogue was what inspired this post, so thanks for helping me clarify some of my thoughts.

Reading some of the comments on this thread, I was struck by the fact that we were really just discussing two different models of resource allocation, in the context of health-care. I wasn't comfortable with either model as an efficient and equitable distributor of resources, and wanted to understand why I was having these misgivings. The following is what I came up with.

Free markets fail to distribute resources in an equitable manner (i.e. those who don't have enough value to offer, receive nothing), government fails to distribute resources efficiently (due to a lack of appropriate feedback).

The problem with the first failure is that values change, and someone who has little to offer today may have something of great value next week. Maybe it's a skill set that is currently unneeded but then becomes required, or someone whose thought process will create a spectacular idea, but who hasn't had that idea yet, or maybe it's just the child they produce, or some small inspiration they give someone else. (There's also the morality issue of not taking care of the less fortunate.)

The problem with the second failure is that often resources do not reach people when the resources are needed. Also, use of the resource is not optimized, limiting growth and quality of life, and in the case of resource scarcity, exacerbating shortages.

So both free market and government have flaws which are currently deal breakers in trusting either with equitable resource distribution. How do we correct these flaws? How do we ensure that people are credited with their contributions to society, including future contributions? How do we provide the incentives and feedback for government to act in an efficient manner? These are the questions at the core of the UHC debate.

Malcolm Gladwell wrote a landmark article on the health care issue a few years ago, including a major counterintuitive argument: a national health care system is in the interests of corporate America!

http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_08_29_a_hazard.html

@Will I like the way that you framed your argument regarding the two key failures of both the free market and the government. I think that an ideal system of UHC would have to find a way of blending the two in a better manner than they are now. I think that they work against each other currently rather than complement each other. I don't know if there is some way to have government administration but use business principles of supply chain distribution and allocation of resources within a government structure. I don't know enough about business to say what that would look like. Any ideas?

has it ever occurred to people that
insurance fraud (often with the help of the doctor), pharmaceuticuls pushing unneeded drugs, and predatory trial lawyers
contribute to the high cost of medical care?

Did you know that Denmark is rated #1 in terms of how happy/content its population is? Yup, those socialists, with universal health care, just aren't complaining about it.

Is healthcare a right in the U.S.? No, it is not and has not been an official right. But neither were most basic human rights until people stood up and demanded it.

COULD healthcare be a right in the U.S.? Sure, if we asked for it.

Ever thought about how maybe the upper classes might not need to be so predatory if they weren't so frightened of falling into a lower class? And why is it so frightening? Because having a poor or lower middle class income in the U.S. means that the stakes against you are so high that you have no chance. And who pays for that? WE DO.

So why not even the playing field a bit? It would be good for labor, good for employers, require less government public assistance that goes into the black hole of nowhere. Why not keep people healthy and productive instead of perpetuating Medicaid/Medicare to barely keep people going, much less improve?

Wake up! Universal health care is good for all of us.

Finance girl- "Socializing health care is a facile solution to the root cause, with the root cause being those that elect not to purchase health care for their families have to accept there will be consequences to that choice"

Did it ever occur to you that some families "choose" not to purchase health care because they can't afford to?

They are well aware of the consequences of being uninsured in this country, as am I. Socialization of health care could save millions of jobs and lives by providing a safety net for those who can't afford to provide it for employees, or can't buy it on their own.