Replies

To redistribute wealth, via me paying someone elses' healthcare costs, while diluting the quality of my own SELF-PAID medical care, is where it's going.

When the uninsured in your area seek medical care at the local ER, who do you think pays now?

That's the problem, all right. Until we start sending people away from the ERs and letting them die in the street we need to admit that we have a universal health care plan right now. Sooner or later everyone gets medical care. Those of us with medical insurance get it in a timely and regular fashion. Those without sometimes get too little too late - or worse , from a public cost standpoint, too much too late.

Another factor to consider is how much the current system, which relies on employee-sponsored plans, inhibits risk-taking and creativity. Who knows how many people there are who stick with a job primarily for the health insurance when, in fact, they would prefer to pursue an alternative career?

All that being said, however, the thought of a government administered universal health care program scares me, for all the reasons that others have given.

You hit the nail on the head. The fact is, when someone is brought to an ER, it may be impossible to find out the name of the person, much less if he or she has insurance. Thus, ERs operate now and figure out the payment details later. If someone doesn't have insurance, then they can be forced to pay, but if they don't have enough money, they'll just declare bankruptcy and the ER picks up the tab.

Therefore, I don't feel that it is a horrible thing that we require that if you can afford emergency health insurance, you should have it. The ER doesn't have a choice about whether or not to operate on you. But you have the option to declare bankruptcy. Because you can declare bankruptcy, you may not have to pay back the $30,000 bill. Why should the ER?

Its a conundrum and you've done a good job summing it up.

As the world's wealthiest nation, and one that values life, we don't want to think of ourselves as a people who would allow the poor and uninsured to die in the streets. Nor does that fit with our Christian nation self image. Early in our history, hospitals were charitable institutions where the poor went to die while those with family and assets were cared for at home.

As lifesaving drugs and medical procedures were developed, medicine became a potential money maker and the charitable institutions gave way to for profit corporations reluctant to serve the needs of the poor (for whom they were first established).

We also value independence and self reliance with a healthy mistrust of government.

So, who are we as a people, and how best do we implement a health care system that reflects our values as a nation, become the central questions.

Should the right to life depend on ability to pay? Eightteen-thousand people in the US die a year as a direct result of a lack of medical insurance.