I'm gonna play devil's advocate here. And it’s gonna be obnoxious, but trust me that it is (mostly) for effect.

2 centuries ago, if your appendix burst, you would have died from peritonitis. The fact you have access to surgery that can save your life today, does not mean that you have a RIGHT to such surgery. Today you have a choice you did not have at all in the 1800's. Some of that access is governed by your ambition and skills to make enough money to afford health insurance. But some of that access is governed by pure luck too. You aren't guaranteed access to that surgery. Such is life.

Just because we as a society CAN do something doesn't mean that we SHOULD do it. There is a cost and benefit analysis to be done. Who is going to pay for universal health care? Will the money really make a difference? Or will we simply end up paying too much, but the true cost will be hidden because it's rolled into the billion dollar federal budget? Who decides what health problems people have a 'right' to be treated, and which are simply bad luck and bad genetics?

Yeah yeah yeah, I'm a cold hearted bastard. And if I were lying on that stretcher, I might think differently. But then, I don't get to make decisions for all the taxpayers in the US just based on my personal needs. Just like I don't get to decide the sentences of people who commit crimes against me. We have dispassionate laws that decide that (dispassionate in theory of course, but still better than mob rule).

If we are going to have universal health care, I want to see REAL analysis of the costs and benefits. And REAL analysis of other countries’ healthcare plans, including the amount of debt they are causing.

REAL analysis folks. Not stories about why little Bobby can’t get treatment for his disease because his parents are unlucky enough to be poor and without health insurance. Life’s not fair kid. Get used to it.

Thank you Lucifer for all your wonderful advocacy on behalf of the conservative movement.

Just because we CAN break away from England and form our own country doesn't mean we SHOULD.

Just because a few unlucky Africans were stupid or slow enough to get caught and brought into slavery doesn't mean the government should spend all that money to free them.

Just because Europe is going to hell and a genocidal freak will soon control the entire continent doesn't mean the taxpayers should have to foot the bill and American soldiers should have to save them. If London and France had been tougher and smarter, they wouldn't have gotten into this mess in the first place, so they can all die.

Scott- never name your son Bobby. It might make you feel bad one day.

Tim,

I was being overly obnoxious to make a point... so I'll take your tone in stride.

My point is that societies don't change just because something 'feels right' or because it makes us all warm and fuzzy inside. There are real costs and benefits to decide.

The colonies broke away from England because the majority of the residents of said colonies fought for and won independence. This was brought on by England’s heavy handed governance of the colonies. There were plenty of loyal British subjects that didn't want independence; they were usually well-off and well-connected people who weren't adversely affected by England's thumb on the economy and governing of the colonies. Lucky for us, there weren't enough of them. If England had not spent so much money fighting Spain, or had not decided to tax the colonies so much to refill it's coffers, then we would probably still be singing "God Save The Queen".

The US government didn't free the slaves JUST because north thought it was right. They did it to help end the civil war. One example of this can be read in the Wikipedia entry for the Emancipation Proclamation: "As Lincoln hoped, the Proclamation turned foreign popular opinion in favor of the Union for its new commitment to end slavery". If it had not been for the American Civil War, slavery might have continued on for decades.

I'll give to charity to help little Bobby. I already do, to my wife's church and to United Way. That give me my own little personal warm and fuzzy feeling. But I'm not going to pay taxes until you can prove to me that enough people are going to benefit from it to justify the cost.

Scott,

Since life is inherently unfair, as you point out, and you just don't seem to see the benefits of people having universal healthcare, let me propose this solution:

If a person cannot afford to pay for their healthcare when they get sick and injured, why not just simply shoot them and burn their bodies in the municipal power plant? Don't like it when it happens to you and your family? Life is unfair, get used to it.

Heck, I've got a nice 10mm Glock that's perfect for the job.

So, how much is a human life worth? Apparently, too much for you. If my wife has a life threatening condition, no amount of money is too much for me.

Since cost is the most important thing to you, how do you tell your wife or your child,

"I know you're very sick, and the doctor and hospital can cure you, but it's going to cost over half a million dollars, and since it's too costly to cure you and see you live and since it's not worth it to society to do so, I'll say good bye now and let you die."

As for your suggestion, I'm a volunteer EMT with a volunteer fire depatment. Maybe not the same as paying for healthcare to a poor family, but I do emergency medical for those out of reach of the metro departments.

Okay, so here's the money question:

If you're going to ration healthcare, based on the idea that we can't cover everyone, who decides who gets healthcare and lives and who doesn't and dies?

And that raises the basic question: How much is a human life worth? And what would it be worth to save one?

I don't have the answer, and I suspect that neither do you.

And again, how do you determine if someone's life is worth saving and at what cost?

My dad sold everything, borrowed everything he could to try to save mom. Us kids kicked in as much as a third of our incomes to help. She still died, but six years after the doctors said she would, and we had those years where she was able to see her grandchildren, see her siblings for the last time and do some amazing things. Dad's over $3 million in debt, and at 87, he's not going to pay it anytime soon. Yet, if you asked him if it was worth it, he would say it was, and would unhesitatingly do it again.

From an objective viewpoint, Mom would have died, should have died 3 months after her diagnosis with lung, throat, liver and stomach cancer, and that $4.5 million spent on her care gone to something else. But I and my family still think it was money well spent, and like Dad, we would do it again without hesitation.

Honestly, there is no way to make such decisions dispassionately soley on a 'cost vs benefits' basis. Let's be blunt, when something like this touches us or someone close, there is no real way to be dispassionate about such decisions.

Jrandom; But I EXPECT our policy makers to be dispassionate. And if you or I are going to aregue for changes in public policy, we need to be dispassionate, at least when we are making decisions that affect everyone else in our country. We can't afford to fo off half cocked (like Iraq) because we get emotional about stuff.

You and I can be passionate on a personal level... when it touches us personally. We can sacrifice everything, and probably would scrifice anything, to save those we love. But I can't, in good concience, as everyone ELSE to sacrifice everything, or even a lot, just for my loved ones.

The question of universal health care is just that... how much are we going to ask everyone else in our country to sacrifice on the chance that we might need to save our loved ones with goverment funded health care? How much in extra taxes? How much in in other unfunded government programs that we already use? How much in national debt that our children need to pay back?

If we can pay for a lot of health care, then great! If we can't, then we can't do it. And if my wife gets sick and I can't afford it, I will curse my fate, but I don't make decisions for the entire country.

Such decisions have been made at some of the most historic moments in our planet's history.

For example, In World War II, the British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill decided not to warn citizens of Coventry England that they were going to be bombed by the German Luftwaffe. British had broken the German Enigma code, but could not risk letting the Germans know. So they let the bombing continue as if they didn't know about it.

I want leaders like that. Leaders that can make the hard choices. Sure, if I were bombed, I would be pissed off and cyr and rage and sue. But again I don't get to make decisions for the rest of the country based on purely my own benefit (The third time i've said this)

The government may be by the people and for the people. But as Tommy Lee Jones said in the movie "Men in Black" -

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

Just animals? Just cost units? Is that what we as people have been reduced to? Are we just disposable things to be tossed aside when we fall ill, or our lives come at cross purposes to national priorities?

Just sad to think people seem to have no more worth than that.