David Johann wrote on January 23, 2008 10:39 PM: One thing is for sure, if this issue requires a good, judicious analysis, the last place you will find it is on the editorial page of the "Review-Journal."

Whateverusaydear wrote on January 23, 2008 10:21 PM: I'm not sure what's being proposed for universal health care. When a candidate says they're for health care for "everyone", does this include illegal aliens or just Americans and legal aliens? Does anyone here know the answer?

Tim wrote on January 23, 2008 07:03 PM: does everybody remember that there are city,county and state hospitals that admit anyone? how many other state and federal healthcare programs are there for the poor or uninsured? all americans can get subsidised health care if they want it. if government takes over health care it goes downhill from then on, you can bet on it.

J wrote on January 23, 2008 03:24 PM: Another point that never seems to come out of the 47 million uninsured people story.



Many of those 47 million are "ILLEGAL ALIENS"!

J wrote on January 23, 2008 03:17 PM: Tim wrote on January 23, 2008 06:55 AM:
We pay more per capita than any other country in the world and have one of the worst health care systems (we are ranked 37th for the quality of our health care)."

If we are so bad, how come heads of other countries and other people come here for health care?

John F wrote on January 23, 2008 09:35 AM: If people have the opportunity to opt out and retain their current health care coverage then no trade will be necessary."

You missed the point John F, employers will stop offering medical insurance to their employees. I mean after all, why should they pay part of the insurance costs if the Gov. is going to pay. (more profit)

Also, how many people that are paying for insurance now are going to keep paying for that insurance, while other people are getting theirs for free? (paid for by taxes)

So it is not going to be 47 million people being insured, it will be 300 million people on the government plan.

Then how long will it be before we have to make appointments 6 months to 1 year out before we can get in to the hospital?

Anyone remember the story out of England last year? The one that told doctors to put off any non life threatening surgery off for up to 6 months.

There are many stories of people dieing while waiting to get in to get treatment, or being told nothing can be done, when in reality the treatment is to costly for regular people.

Beware of what you wish for, you might just get it!

douglas wrote on January 23, 2008 02:53 PM: poster "art" must be buying his insurance "offshore". mebbe in an islamic country ?

the last half dozen policies i've bought for all classes of risk, never required any "race" input. the only "discrimination" i noticed was that for property, the higher the limits i wanted, the more i was quoted. duh. and for health, the older i became, for some reason the higher the premium. duh.

in all cases, in every insurance "shopping trip", i was offered options. same as if i wanted to live below sea level, i should expect to pay higher premiums than one living outside of a flood zone. these insurance premiums are simply wagers. don't like your "risk" and the associated, resultant insurance premiums ? change those parameters.

there is no ethical reason that other more frugal, more responsible citizens should bear the expenses of irresponsible neighbors. should the little pig who sacrificed and built the brick house, subsidize the blown over, straw house built by the pig who chose to spend his money elsewhere ? should the winning players on a poker table, refund the losses to the inept player ?

timinator wrote on January 23, 2008 01:47 PM: Excuse me folks, but wouldn't we have to amend the Constitution to delegate the power to the federal government to create this new behemoth bureaucracy?

Oh, why bother, that's never stopped us before...

Art wrote on January 23, 2008 10:57 AM: Offering up the Medicare option to everyone would normalize prices, giving all the option of group health care. People without an insurance plan or Medicare are paying 3-7 times the price for the same service vs "group contract price". I'm talking about the gross billing, not after re-imbursement from the plans. A universal health care plan would stop this malpractice and not require any government subsidy. Uninsured would pay their own way, just 1/3rd - 1/7th as much as they're now paying.



When you go into Walmart, is there one price for Whites, another for Blacks? What if they overcharged Jews by 700%? There'd be outrage. But, the medical monopoly ripping off the less fortunate and the public in general through illegal price fixing, blocking competition, and discriminatory practices & pricing is "free market"?

We all know where the R-J editors head is.



Offering people a competitive choice is something this country has to do!

douglas wrote on January 23, 2008 10:34 AM: for some "universal" care to be universal and equitable...

make it mandatory for all... legislators and those currently covered otherwise. what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

absolutely prohibit illegal infiltrators and their children from being eligible. if i become ill in a "foreign" country though there legally, i'm bound to be transported back to the u.s. at my expense.

seriously cap the "med-mal", national debt sized "awards" ultimately scored against we taxprayers by the slip and fall reptiles.

Tom, Burbank wrote on January 23, 2008 10:04 AM: Shrillary is pushing something akin to what the Scheisternegger here in California and our Socialist legislature advocate, a new health system which requires everyone to buy insurance. They never describe the penalty for not buying said insurance, but imagine a huge new IRS-style health bureaucracy. They aren't using the term 'socialized medicine' here, either, which means it is. When politicians actively avoid using a term, then it is what they say it isn't. A 'path to citizenship' IS amnesty, redeployment IS surrender, and non-socialized medicine IS socialized medicine.

Read All Comments