[burn out]

Personally under our Bill of Rights and right to life I think this implies the right to access whatever means to maintain our life i.e.healthcare. I do not think our forefathers when planning our constitiution would have left healthcare to only those that are in a siutation where they can afford health insurance. Let's not forget that soon all of us will be in the boat when we retire and will have to find additional expensive insurance to supplement our medicare. Therefore, I think there needs to be either a constitutional admendment including healthcare as a right or that we just
expand the bill of rights to include it and make health care universal. It makes me sick to see my own family members dying before they can get affordable health insurance..and it is not just my family but millions of born and raised AMERICANS they are denied their life because they can't pay nor will they be treated. Lets face it the doctors are not the same today as "Litlle House on the Prairie" where they will take a chicken for pay nor will the let you make payments, you either pay now or you don't get seen.

This is not right.Especially in the greatest most powerful nation in the world which is leading in medical science and technology.

I am not promoting a certain political view or agenda, I am not supportingcommunism or socislism, I just know what we have is not just or fair.

[HM2Viking]

FDR spoke about the need for a second Bill of Rights. It most certainly included the right to affordable access to health care.

[HM2Viking]

COBRA is not a feasible avenue to insurance. Employers can legally charge a 2.5% premium for you to keep the coverage. Since families often need insurance due to job loss how on earth can they afford 102.5% of the family premium when they are unemployed?

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by burn out

I do not think our forefathers when planning our constitiution would have left healthcare to only those that are in a siutation where they can afford health insurance.

Our founding fathers, when drafting the Constitution, were justly afraid of the abuse of an all powerful Federal government. Indeed, many were against the bill of rights BECAUSE there was an assumption that specific limitations to Federal power in the bill of Rights implied the Federal gov't had powers not intended, in the first place. Read the Federalist Papers if you want some insight into that.

Cradle to grave government means cradle to grave Federal power. I'll take my chances rather than give away my rights to government. Retaining my rights MEANS that I have the right to be successful beyond my wildest dreams. Part and parcel to that is the 'right' to something considerably less then successful.

Limited government is the best government. I have no desire for an Uncle Daddy. I have no faith whatsoever in a bloated bureaucracy to protect my interests, or to even care about me in the first place. That's why the phrase 'close enough for government work' entered our lexicon.

~faith,
Timothy.

[sanctuary]

Using the Social Security system as a guideline, "close enough" means 3% of money taken in goes to overhead, salaries for employees, rent and utilities, benefits, etc. Compare that to any mutual fund, stock of bond brokerage, and you'll see that it averages 11%. Some are as high as 18%. When one factors out the profit the insurance companies make, we could indeed afford excellent health care in this rich nation. Right now, "Uncle Daddy" lives in the penthouse on Wall Street.

[pickledpepperRN]

The postal system, fire fighting, paramedic/EMS services, and police are necessary for the general welfare. I think healthcare is too.

Single payer is not socialized medicine.
Many industrialized nations DO have a socialized system with doctors, nurses, and others employed by the government.
In the United States we have no healthcare system at all. All other industrialized nations do.

[laughing weasel]

I agree with the folks who want some kind of protection from catastrophic illnesses. I also agree with Timothy that the government is great way to make a billion dollars disappear quickly. The government is very efficient at spending money. there has to be some kind of incentive in the national health care system to reduce waste. private enterprise with improved regulations to prevent the various abuses is my preference.

[cabkrun]

Timothy, you have faith in corporate America to care about you and have your best interest at heart. Yikes, your job must not have been outsourced yet.

[pickledpepperRN]

President Bush on Thursday said, "There is no question in my mind that a proper role for the federal government is to help the poor and the elderly and the diseased get health care. We'll do that...."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070125-1.html

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by cabkrun

Timothy, you have faith in corporate America to care about you and have your best interest at heart. Yikes, your job must not have been outsourced yet.

I have no faith in corporate America whatsover. Corporate America, however, isn't an entity; it's a bunch of entities. Therefore, I can pick and choose from corporations that at least must give lip service to my needs and wants in order to garner business.

With Uncle Daddy, the thing that disappears is choice. When choice disappears, so does any concept of actually caring about MY needs. And that leads to a complete lack of compassion, real or feigned. I just don't TRUST anybody, corporate America or Uncle daddy to have my best interest at heart when such choices are made. With corporate America, their choices are counterbalanced by MY choice to go to a competitor with my business. When Uncle Daddy takes my choice away from me, that's not freedom, it's dictatorial. He has NO RIGHT to make my choice for me. NONE. I detest the concept at its very roots. Our forefathers committed to revolution for less.

An all-powerful government is not a friend of the people; it's the enemy. Our forefathers were well aware of this, having stripped the government of the right to do a whole host of things, including the very thing being discussed here. At its roots, universal healthcare is tyranny. It's not about providing healthcare for some, but about standardizing it at the lowest common denominator for all. Wanting to help those less fortunate is one thing. Doing so by using MY wallet and removing MY choice is another. By its very definition, charity cannot be coerced. By its very definition, dictating MY choices has nothing to do with charity and everything to do with control. Anytime the government tells you that it can run your life for you better than you: it's time to be very afraid. That's the nature of power. When you empower the government at the expense of the people, you empower the government to be an enemy of the people.

Not only have I never been 'outsourced', I would not consider such an outcome to be a negative consequence in my life. I'm not committed to any corporation; why should they be committed to me? Instead, I chose a job and a career path that more or less ensures my marketability to a variety of corporations in a variety of economic situations. Come layoff or depression, people still need nurses, and need them in great numbers.

~faith,
Timothy.