As a Canadian that's been to the USA on numerous occasions I'm gonna have to agree. There was always a joke that if you got injured in the states hide it until you get back to Canada.

We may have waiting lines sometimes, but at least we have something to wait for. 

Maybe those uninsured people should get jobs and not look for a handout.

You know why I'm insured? It's because I work. If these lazy slugs will get off their asses and find some form of work, then they can qualify for insurance, or at the very least be able to afford coverage on their own.

I've never gone a point in my life without insurance, and if I ever did have a point where I was uninsured, I'd figure out a way to help myself; I wouldn't sit on the internet all day complaining about how the system is unfair.

People need to learn personal responsibility. Why should I care if a handful of lazy, low-class, scumbags aren't insured? I'm insured, my family is insured, that's my concern. I shouldn't have to pay for, or worry about, anyone else. 

The jobs are there, but they're not the "dream jobs" people ideally want.

I could go out right now, and by the end of the day get a job at a McDonalds, Burger King, Wal*Mart, Target, or something similar that in a period of time would get me coverage; the thing is, people don't want to take those kind of jobs, because they feel it's below them.

I'm a college educated guy who's never held a job that's netted me less than $70K a year, but if I were in a rough spot financially and I needed to provide for my family, I'd suck up my pride and stock Wal*Mart shelves in a heartbeat; I wouldn't sit around, collecting a piddly unemployment check, while complaining about how bad this recession is.

Oh, and don't say I'm a "lucky one" for being where I am. My parents are both teachers, and they busted their asses to afford for me to get the educational opportunities I had in life, and I busted my ass while there to take advantage of those opportunities. I'm not one of the "lucky ones", I'm one of the hard working ones. 

If my parents could do it, and I could do it, then anyone else can do it. 

Well, if you take that hourly job, and not spend your money frivolously, you could afford some insurance coverage independently on your own.

I love how I'm getting buried and insulted, but someone explain to me why I should care about the uninsured?

I'm insured, my family is insured, I have a job, I make great money, I have enough banked away where even if I lost my job and insurance tomorrow I'd be able to provide for myself and my family for atleast 4-5 years without worry.

Why the hell should I give a crap about some low-class scum who don't have jobs and are uninsured? Why should that bother me, or worry me?

If those people can't get medical care, it doesn't effect my life in the least. If those people can't afford rent, it doesn't effect my day at all. If those people have no money in the bank and no way to support themselves, it doesn't negatively hinder me one bit.

Once again, why should I care, and why should I support a plan that would cause me, and people like me, to cover these losers benefits? 

Everyone should look out for themselves. I've never asked for a handout, and never will. I take care of myself and everyone else should do the same. People don't need to "work with me".

I don't care about people at the bottom, I worry about myself.

Hell, I'm one of three managers for a small software company, and last month I fired a guy from my company who had an unemployed wife, a 5 year old kid, and another one on the way in two months; I got rid of him because firing him freed up his salary, which in turn will allow myself and the other management in my office to have extra vacation time come the end of the year.

I was in a position of power to do that, a position I worked hard to get to. I busted my ass to get to a position in life where I can give myself what I want. I don't see that as wrong, I see that as reaping the benefits of my hard work.

Some may see what I did as "heartless", or "terrible"; I see it as business. I earned the right to do that, thus I take no shame in it.

If you don't like being in a position where your future is in my hands, or any other bosses hands, try and work hard and get to a position above me, otherwise don't be surprised when I fire you so I can have two weeks at Atlantis in the Bahamas in November. 

I think you need to try to look at things on a larger scale. The problem is that there are a lot of social problems that could be alleviated with investing in social capital, but you guys won't do it.

Example: Why do you think crime is so high? Because people are lazy and looking for a quick income fix? You would think that you'd be smart enough to realize that it makes a lot more sense to spend some money now rather than a ton of money later. Sure, I get all of your arguments, I don't like having to pay higher taxes to keep things running and to look out for other people a whole lot either, but the thing is I'm smart enough to realize that if tax dollars increase education, increase social harmony, lower crime and beautify the city I live in, then its a pretty good investment isn't it? Keeping things in some system of check, with me happily doing quite well, is a much better scenario than creating a society with such a gap between have and have not that I have to spend the extra money saved on gates and guards to ensure my personal security, or worry about getting knifed at a bank machine by some drug addicted dude that's had his whole life fall out from underneath him and has a real vendetta against anyone better off.

Look at the situation rationally. You're not arguing in a vacuum. There's never going to be a society where we don't have to look after the less fortunate. Ever. Its a fact, so stop fussing about an impossible thing just because you don't agree with reform. You're right - you totally are - but does you being right fix the problem? Not at all.

I don't know why I bothered to write this. You really seem like one of those ivory tower privileged jitbags that has had everything handed to them. You said your parents were teachers? That's a great job. My mother worked in a convenience store and raised my brother and I alone - so I've had a way tougher go of it than you ever did, yet I made it, I'm successful, and I'm also not bitter or disenchanted enough to ever want to deny my common man a helping hand. Because I've seen it and lived it and it fucking sucks. Looks like my mother did a better job alone than both of your parents did, 'cause you're an asshole. 

Even when that results in everyone paying less and getting more healthcare? You guys pay more and get less care than any other developed nation in the world. 

Why would you willingly use a more expensive system that does less for you? 

I'd like to see some evidence that establishing universal healthcare would reduce costs. Everyone speaks as if this is a foregone conclusion while ignoring the record of history showing there has never been a U.S. government program that reduced costs. Our high healthcare costs today are largely a result of government involvement and adding more government will only add costs.

And to answer your question, no, it's still not right to steal from some of us to give to others even when there is an overall benefit. The free market and charities would provide the same or more benefit without requiring theft. 

I'm not sure I understand your definition of morality, but that aside; how would the average person decide what research is worth funding? Does the average person understand the need and utility of protein folding research, or epidemiology, or molecular geometry, etc, etc...? How would the non-approachable, non-"sexy" topics get funded? Who would decide? 

The scientific method is not served by nor dependent upon belief; if anything belief gets in the way. Government control of research funding may not be perfect, but it does work and please remember that it is overseen to a large part by scientists that understand the importance of apparently esoteric topics. 

Each person doesn't need to make specific decisions about what research should be done; research organizations can take care of that. Most people will donate through their employers as they do now--the employer has personnel who can make informed decisions about research contributions. If people do wish to contribute to specific research areas, there are organizations that can help them identify appropriate companies. For example, check out the Health and Medical Research Charities of America.

If government was less involved in providing funds for such research, we would see even more free market organizations appear to help companies and individuals make these decisions (not to mention the companies themselves would be lobbying (advertising) to us directly rather than to politicians).

And my morality is quite simple, based on the Golden Rule ("Do unto others what you would like to be done to you."). Do I want to help the people in my community or my country have better health? Sure. So I will volunteer and donate. But, under the Golden Rule, taxing me to forcibly provide for them gives me license to go steal from my neighbor when I have hospital bills to pay. 

[in response to my first comment] I'm sorry but that's a naive and short sighted point if view. Government is hardly stealing your money, it's taxing you in order to provide services to it's citizenry. All of it's citizenry. Which is the point of a government. To provide for the people it represents. The idea that each person should be responsible for their own well being is laughable in a society comprised of millions upon millions of people. We already tacitly allow government funding to be used for public goods. If yours or Ken's house caught on fire would you call the fire department. And if the answer is yes, to use Ken's idiot argument why should I pay for the fire department to come and save his house from burning down, after all I've worked hard to make sure my house doesn't catch fire why should I pay for scum like Ken to have their fire's put out. Why should I pay for police to come to Ken's house when the guy he fired so he can take a longer vacation decides that Ken's a worthless sack of human filth and should be robbed to help pay for food for the unemployed wife, 5 year old child and 2nd kid on the way? After all I've worked hard to not be a monster who delights in the misery that they cause, and when someone comes looking for a little payback why should I pay for the cops to protect a loser scumbag like Ken? 

Why should I? Because it's a mutually beneficial arrangement, if my house goes up the fire department will come, if I need them the police will come. Ken delights in calling the 50 million people who lack health insurance scum and loser. He better hope that they continue to believe they are, because if they ever wake up and realize that they've been screwed over by a rigged system then guys like Ken are in real trouble. 

Umm, maybe you should take another read of the U.S. Constitution. It prohibits federal involvement in such social matters for many of the same reasons our Founding Fathers fled their homelands: the power of the state corrupts. And, as history has proven, it is also highly inefficient.

The purpose of government is not to provide for its citizens. At least not the U.S. government. The purpose is to protect the lives, freedom, and property of its citizens. And no, mentioning the protection of "life" is not a license to set up nationalized healthcare. As with most of our federal social programs, a national healthcare system is unconstitutional. And for good reason. 

Do you realize most fire departments are voluntary? Exactly as they should be. Most of us are not, in fact, forced to pay for the fire department that may save the house of our idiot neighbor or Ken. But if we feel they provide a useful service, we are free to contribute to our local fire department. Using your logic, you would advocate a national fire department paid for by our tax dollars. Consider how unfair that would be for many people.

Theft is not OK simply because we call the stolen money "taxes" and our gang stealing it "the government". 

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm...

See that guy that's so much higher than the rest? That's you guys. Just look at the statistics. Amongst developed nations the US simply spends more than almost everyone else. Couple that with the fact that other countries pay less and never have to worry about whether their insurance company will refuse payment, how much their co-pay or deductible will be etc you end up with a system that is more complex, costs more and provides less care.

The reason why the added regulations imposed by the US government haven't helped is because the entire system needs to be reworked. You're just taking on more costs to a broken system. 

"The free market and charities would provide the same or more benefit without requiring theft."

Prove it. Find a working model that provides at least as much care and costs less than any other country with universal healthcare. Go ahead, I'll be waiting. 

I certainly don't dispute we have a problem. I just don't support government as the solution. Putting my philosophical arguments aside for a moment, I also haven't seen any evidence that the proposed government solutions would actually reduce costs. In fact, historically, government solutions have always cost more in the long run. Why would this be any different?

Everyone needs to stop making the invalid jump in logic that strongly correlates other countries' lower costs with the fact that they are largely government run. People are in for a rude awakening when, after we've implemented national healthcare, costs actually increase even more. As usual, everyone will be left scratching their heads saying, "but I thought this would make things cheaper." I can hardly wait for the news stories about people going to the hospital so they can get a free meal since they can't afford to feed themselves anymore.

Our healthcare costs are significantly higher in this country for plenty of reasons, the primary being how much government is already involved, not only through Medicare and Medicaid but through stifling and expensive regulations. The further our healthcare system gets from a free market/pay-per-service system, the more expensive it becomes.

One of the other major reasons healthcare in the U.S. is so expensive is due to our entitlement mentality. The majority has become convinced (incorrectly) that healthcare is a right and that they should receive every possible procedure and medication regardless of cost. Combine that with our consumer culture and you end up with people continually abusing their bodies and then expecting the system to solve their health problems at no charge to themselves. Distancing the patient from the cost of services even further will only exacerbate this problem, making it more expensive, not less.

The culture in most other countries has been less influenced by this entitlement/consumerist mentality, so people tend to take more personal responsibility for their health and are less apt to use medical services for minor or unnecessary procedures and medications.

The proposals suggested for our country will be a disaster under our current culture and will only further entrench our bad habits.

OK, I'll do the research. But remember, our costs in the U.S. are off the scale partly due to cultural reasons that can't be changed overnight (whether or not we have universal healthcare). 

But in the meantime I have to throw this back at you (and to the president and congress as well): Prove that your plan will actually save us money. It's not enough to point to other countries and say, "look over there, they implemented national healthcare and it costs them less than it costs us." Apples and oranges. Putting the cultural difference argument aside, I'll be moderately satisfied if someone can show me a set of studies showing that overall costs (government + individual) decreased after implementation of socialized healthcare.