Thanx for the input Sally Jo, could you tell some of what has led to you feeling this way.

Thanx in advance.

Thanks and I appreciate that. I just feel that health care is a privilege not a right. It's something you have to earn and pay for. It's not that I don't care about those who go without but life isn't always fair. Does everyone have a right to health care? Many would say yes I suppose. Ok, who pays for it?

How far down the rabbit hole shall we go? What if they can't afford a car to get to their doctors appointment? Should the government (aka: us) buy them a car, bus or cab fare? What about if they can't afford food or a home? Should we all pay for that? I think we've been trying that and so far it's not working very well.

Remember the war on poverty and the trillions of dollars transferred from person to person over the last 50 years? Well, we still have poverty and people with out health care.

It's nice to help people, but tax money isn't an unlimited supply and that's what pays the bills. How much can you tax people before they stop producing as much? How much can you cap prices before people will no longer pursue that profession? How about if the government caps your salary? What incentive will you have to grow?

Our current government is working towards spreading the misery instead of spreading opportunity.

It really goes back to our roots. You may be surprised to know but the first pilgrim settlements in America were basically socialist in design. Everyone worked for the common store and everyone took an equal share. What they ended up with was producers and non-producers. The producers got tired of providing for the non-producers and basically everyone ended up starving without enough food and provisions.

It wasn't until they divided up the land and gave each person a plot and told them they were on their own. The first capitalism in America. Soon after that commerce was born and the pilgrims started to prosper... except for non-producers.

I feel it's is very similar today. We have some who prosper and some that don't. Now the government seeks to try and level the playing field by taking from producers and giving to non-producers. I realize it's not that black and white today but the model still holds true.

I work my butt off, 70 hours a week and why the hell do I have to pay for others cars, health care and everything else. The only money government has to spend is what they collect in taxes from us.

You simply can't provide everything for everyone and be all things to all people. At some point you have to fend for yourself. Fair or not fair it does not work and it cannot work. Health care should be left in the private sector and I'll end my comments with that.

We will have to just agree to disagree. In my book health care is not on a par with cars busses and cab fare, and I suspect many feel that way...just my supposition though. The "fair or not" proviso seems to hold well for a lot of people until they are in a position of having no way to afford healthcare, or until their parents or children are impacted by it.
The fact is health care is different, and there are some moral and ethical considerations that go beyond those cars, cab fares etc. When you have to look at the 75 year old that comes in bleeding from her brain because she couldn't afford her blood pressure medicines it colors you. When you look at the man that had a lifesaving cardiac catheterization and stent placed last year when he had insurance, only to have it clog off because he lost his insurance he could no longer afford the 300 dollar a month medication to keep it open, it changes you. When you see people lucky enough to have elective joint replacements as compared to the old man or lady relegated to being a shut in because one hip or knee is so eroded and painful as to preclude walking it changes one's awareness.
If health care left to the private sector worked so well we would not have the catastrophe we see now. If you are not in the catastrophe it is often hard to appreciate it.
Looking at better ways to provide comprehesive availibility of healthcare does guarantee we on are the slippery slope to unabashed socialism (for whatever that term is worth). It simply means we as a country have decided that some things are that important, healthcare being the prime example.
Again, I submit that culling the administative overhead, severely weeding out beuracracy, putting the brakes on malpractice, and making pragmatic choices about what we provide and when would provide much of the "how do we pay for it answers".

And to be clear, we have universal coverage on a lot of things, it is called the emergency room. It is just a horribly ineffective way to do it, and costs much much more in the long run. It is a matter of semantics to a great degree...lets retool what we have, what we are already spending and wasting on, doesnt matter to me if you call it socailism or Fred.

Oops, screwed up on the post.

To SERENITYSEEKER and DKLASSEN

Thanks to both of you for a lively and very informative discussion !!!

This kind of discussion is what makes a message board on politics and such a great thing....very informative to all !!

Thanks again to both of you !!

And that's the key - when left to "the law" says you have to treat in an ER setting, the exploitation occurs, costs rise, and the everyone gets upset.

What makes it tougher is that health care is not a stand-alone problem. With 15 million (plus or minus) illegal aliens in the US, their impact on the ER burden is brutal. So, any resolution which eliminates/reduces illegal immigration also reduces the ER burden paid by county indigent health care funds.

A health care "insurance" program which specifically accepts those on unemployment compensation or who remain unemployed after benefits expire solves that portion of the problem without trying to have an omnibus solution which impacts the entire population.

I doubt anyone wants to deny health care to anyone else. However, the fear that a government centralized management of health care delivery for everyone will not work. Worse, then health care delivery becomes politicized selectively dispensed according to "party lines."

I don't think many folk feel comfortable to have the Republican National Committee, the Democratic National Committee or the K Street lobbyists for the various medical special interest groups making delivery rules and regulations. Somehow, I wouldn't trust a poltically-appointed Surgeon General in conjunction with the Secretary of the Treasury deciding if senior-citizen me is worth the expense of a particular medical procedure. Protect me against that potential and I can go along with almost anything!