And it’s just good economic sense for the U.S. to switch to some form of universal health care. Every other first-world country has this, only our businesses and industries have to provide it to their employees, and it raises their costs. If they didn’t have to worry about health care a lot of capital would be freed for hiring, research, expansion, etc. They could compete on a more level playing field.

And denying the uninsured treatment is DANGEROUS. Staph, tuberculosis, influenza, without decent, timely treatment one person can infect dozens, hundreds of others. And if we get real unlucky we could have a full blown epidemic on our hands. The Spanish Influenza epidemic of 1918 killed more than 25 million people worldwide, and started right here in the USA.

It’s not just a moral issue. Health care for everyone makes sense economically and from public health stand. All those congress people and senators who vote against it, they all have coverage for the rest of their lives. Why should they care about US?

I think that’s a mischaracterization of the dilemma many people face. If you’ve paid a pile of money for an education in hopes that you’ll be able to earn a good living (and thus provide for your eventual family to the best of your ability), then working at Wal-Mart makes little sense. Reason? It takes you out of your trained profession. Once out, it’s difficult to break back in.

If you’re unemployed, different story. But I guarantee you there are just as many “republicans” as “democrats” on the dole in such circumstances. I dislike them either way.

Just as come retirement time, it’ll be equal parts blue and red drawing from the Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid till.

But ultimately, in the healthcare debate, there needs to be some consideration of the “neighborhood effect,” to crib from Milton Freidman. That is, that which sustains one sustains all. If your neighbor is tossed into bankruptcy due to collossal health care bills (the reason for approximately 75% of bankruptcy filings today*) then it’s obvious that this affects us all.

Insurance costs are killing businesses and individuals. It’s simply not working as it is. S-CHIP is but one tiny fraction of the whole problem.

That said, I’d welcome a candidate for public office who stood up and demanded Americans spend less. But no one in politics is willing to, let’s say, put all those workers assembling snowmobiles on the street. The majority of our economic growth has depended on this uninterrupted consumption of truly unnecessary crap.

And if we stop buying illuminated 6-foot plastic Santa Claus statues, entire villages in China would be unemployed.

* I don’t know if that percentage is right, but I recall reading it someplace. I’ll try to look it up.

- pooling funds to distribute risk and cover medical expenses for those who end up needing them, is fine if it’s done via an insurance company – which increases costs, and denies insurance to people who already need, and even steps in and denies care if *they* decide they don’t want to pay it.

BUT

pooling funds to distribute risk and pay medical expenses for those who need them is NOT fine if it’s done by a government agency that takes NO profit, does NOT deny care based on need, and does NOT interfere with doctors.

Explain, please?

Thanks for your reply to my question and thanks for keeping it civil.

“Why should anyone else have to pay across the board, for my medical risks?”

It seems to me that we kind of do this already in a few other arenas. My taxes support a network of roads and even though I don’t drive on all of them, the existence of such critical infrastructure benefits everyone. My taxes pay for a police department and a justice system and even though I don’t need to call the police every day, I benefit from the work that they do for the greater community. My tax dollars support a war in Iraq that, theoretically, is protecting me from terrorism even though I have never been a victim of terrorism. We pay for these things collectively so that we can go about our business, whatever that might be, without having to worry about these things. (I suppose the extreme anti-tax folks are against all of this.)

To employ the model implied in the quote above, roads would probably only exist in centers of wealth/business. We might not have police as we know them, but “security” (aka thugs) only for those who can afford it. Should we leave the costs of the fight against terrorism up to the citizens of New York and DC? After all, they were the ones who suffered “the breaks,” as you put it.

I see health care as a part of the larger infrastructure picture and an investment(!) of sorts in the community/country. To that end, I would have no problem at all helping to pay into a system that absorbs your risks. Don’t misinterpret that as pity, but if you have more to offer this world than being a Wal-Mart greeter, then I would rather promote conditions that allow you to share what you have to offer. We would all benefit.

Republican water carriers like Limbuagh, coulter, o’reilly, hannity say things like this all the time. Where is you outrage towards that? The last gasp 26%r’s are tearing this once proud country apart. Tell me: Would Jesus provide coverage for the kids? Yes he would.

Yes I am suggesting a Wal Mart type job. Or a factory job. Or a kitchen worker. WHATEVER it takes.
I would do that. I’m not ABOVE this type of work and frankly most people who call themselves well educated believe they are ABOVE such work. And they use it as an excuse to stay unemployed or, on the unemployment rolls for yrs on end. THAT’s another post though.

I would change my lifestyle. My kids come first- and I would do anything to provide for them. If it means selling the damn house and fancy cars, so be it. If it means I have to work 2 jobs, so be it. I would do that before taking help from the government.

It’s not easy. Even with employer provided plans we sometimes are asked…I have a medical condition that I have no control over. It generally doesn’t pop up as a problem. But the time will come where it might. I am a risk to insure. If I end up having to purchase my own plan I will have to pay more. Thems the breaks. Why should anyone else have to pay across the board, for my medical risks? Why should I have to pay for your risk?

Again this isn’t about the S CHIP stuff.