[sharona97]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

I'm not speaking out of both sides of my mouth, at all.

First, I never said I'd never be sick. I SAID that God had enabled me with the means to help myself. I have good insurance, short and long term disability, good life insurance, and savings to back all of that up. I'm prepared. THANKS be to God.

Could my life be wiped out. It's possible.

As far as using the gov't system for a last resort. I think EVERYBODY should have that option, and so, it's not hypocritical of me to support such a concept. It's not that I don't believe in looking out for those in needs.

I just don't trust or support a gov't system that steals choice away from EVERYBODY in order to provide for the needs of some. I don't agree with gov't restricted care. I think we are far too rich a nation to settle for a fair share in a dismal, gov't outcome.

I just don't believe it's a good vehicle of FIRST RESORT. Gov't is a tradeoff - it's a tradeoff in both quality and cost: more expensive, lessor quality care. Gov't only excels at tryanny. That is the heart of gov't restricted care: we will take from you all choice but OUR choice.

No Thanks. We can do better than that for the vast majority of Americans EVEN AS we care for those not in that majority. 85% of Americans are covered with Insurance today. Return to the free market, and that number would push past 90% THEN we can look out for those left behind. We could do so, for FAR cheaper than Medicare.

How compassionate is it to use Medicare as a vehicle to push the gov't to the edge of bankruptcy so that it has no means to address SS? How compassionate is it to drop this expense on our kids? Gimme, Gimme, after all, I'm a 'boomer'. I'm entitled.

~faith,
Timothy.

Please read your first sentence in your post I've quoted. This was the premise of what followed in my message. Then please reread post #232 and your first sentence.

[teeituptom]

Originally Posted by Emmanuel Goldstein

I'm sure I've missed a few posts as I've followed this thread along, but I fail to see where anyone has refuted the original premise: that a majority of Americans would tolerate higher taxes in return for universal healthcare.

I concur, no one has refuted it at all.

And why would they afterall, the concept of this great country turning a fraction of its resources to something as admirable as UHC. Where all get quality health care. Who could truly be against this concept.

I much prefer higher taxes for UHC as opposed to al illegal war

[pickledpepperRN]

The only people who support single-payer are most people.

…Nearly two-thirds of voters polled said the United States should adopt a universal health insurance program "in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers." Fewer, but still a majority at 54 percent, said they supported a single-payer system whereby all Americans would get their health insurance through a taxpayer-financed government plan….

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-...-voter-worries