[Bryhn]

Given that enough people are interested in some sort of nationalized health care to bring it to the table, I'd say it's perfectly American -- even if you disagree with the notion.

What is enough, and who are you to say it is a given? Do you really think the majority of this nation wants universal health care?

Well, nobody will force you to accept nationalized health insurance if you'd rather keep your policy. Unlike education, however, you won't be taxed for it whether you use it or not: the plan appears to be that those who use it will pay for it.

Wrong...Universal health care means a single payer system, which WILL eliminate private pay ability AND there are strong indications that health insurance will be mandated. How in the world will they be able to pay for it if they don't? And you can bet your last dollar we will be taxed, fined or forced to pay for it. Call it what you want, but it is the government taking our money.

As far as people from other countries coming here to use our hospitals, you neglect to add that those that do are rich and can afford to go to the best clinics and doctors in the world, not Average Joes like you and I. By and large, socialized medicine in the countries I listed has been an unqualified success.

The point is that the health care in this country is not only the best in the world, but the only care that is attainable for them. They are wealthy, and still can not get the type of care they want. Have you treated a patient from Europe? I have treated several, and it is a shame what they have experienced. And you think the average Joe has it bad now? Just wait. With universal health care the best doctors will be gone. They won't let the government dictate to them how to treat patients. To pay for the best doctors will be considered black market.

Add to that immense, inefficient bureacracies and ridiculous executive salaries.

No kidding. You just described the U.S. government and it's many useless bureacracies. Medicare, Social Security? They are broke, and now for the baby boomers that have paid over 40 years into Medicare are about to have it taken away to fund yet another project.


Let's say you are 36 years old. You have had some complications with your bowel movements. You are on a universal health care system. You are under the age of 50. There is already a one year waiting list for a colonoscopy for those who are over the age of 50 and fall into the category of risks for colon disease. You on the other hand are not probable to have an issue at your age. You do not get one, even if your doctor thinks you ought to have one. Add to the fact that almost half the physicians in this country would consider retiring or quiting if some form of public option passes and that says a lot.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but really all you appear to have are unsubstantiated declarations of this dystopian future tha will happen if something like a public option were to come to be. Where are your arguments? If you think comparing UH with other socialistic amenities of American life is ridiculous, back up your argument. I happen to not see why such comparisons are out of bounds.

I don't feel like you have really offered anything better. Universal health care establishes an enormous dependency on the government. Your very life to be specific. This breeds a more socialistic population and I believe the movement by the democratic/progressive parties early in the previous century did a good job of cultivating it. Our universities nurture it, and our media stokes it. Universal health care has (as many analysts refer to it) been the holy grail for the democratic party. I see it quite appropriate to view as I do.

It doesn't mean I am against good quality health care for everyone. I am just against a system that will give everyone coverage, but in only a very limited way. I do think that universal health care is a huge part of becoming socialistic. If you don't, I really don't care. It still doesn't make this o.k..