2. So far no good plan apparently because nobody is changing anything. Even though we all agree that the system is broken. Well they did change things around Massachusetts with the Mitt Romney plan but it’s far from ideal. Yes they’ve got more people covered by insurance plan than any other state but sadly enough the deductibles of this plan are so high that nobody uses them!
So much for leaving it to local governments. Plus most of these local politicians are such in need of the Health Insurance lobbying money for their campaigns that it is unlikely that things will change any time soon.

4. so if it’s doomed from the get go what are you suggesting? You recognize that the system is corrupt but you are willing to let it go as is? Let’s just sit on our hands?

5. The Bush objective was greed and personal gratification (needed to impress daddy) which resulted in a lot of death and chaos. Anybody who’s trying to establish a state run healthcare system will gain no power nor wealth from it. Can you please tell me how Lyndon B. Johnson got wealthy from signing into law the Medicare bill? Political recognition and “glory” maybe (from people who approve) but there is no money to be made from a state run health program, let’s be real!

6. Help me out are you a libertarian, a tea party guy or just a staunch Republican. Not that I am trying to put you in a box but sometimes the stuff you say sound more libertarian in nature and then bam you turn things around and all of a sudden you’re a staunch Republican!
I mean seriously using your previous argument where is it in the constitution that I should be forced to pay for auto insurance? Who made it a “privilege” to drive? Privileges? I thought we had done away with privileges with the revolution, lol. Besides you still don’t answer the question. Should we go to the Supreme Court to abolish Medicare as it is clearly an infringement of the 10th amendment. If you have grandparents alive, you should bring it up to them, I’d be curious to hear their answer.
I will tell you what, the fact that we use health insurance for routine visit is not what make the system broken, far from it (and back to the car analogy you can use your car insurance to replace a cracked windshield)
What makes the system broken is greed. Greed from Health Insurance Companies (they are from lacking), then greed from the medical profession (have you ever had an itemized bill for an hospital stay, just for an uncomplicated pregnancy for instance, items like a box of gauze $50.00 (12 pads in a box), greed from the pharmaceutical industry. Drugs are more expensive in the US than anywhere else for the same drug. You can buy a box of Ibuprofen (Doliprane)in France for 1.50 Euros (no insurance involved), Tylenol is about $10+ depending on the type of caps. There’s a reason a reason for it, the heavy marketing (TV commercials) and the heavy lobbying.

Thanks for your thoughts. My responses:

1.a. It is not a question of whether the task is too big for the U.S., but whether correct principles of government and prudence should permit government to solve certain problems, and at what level of government they should be handled.

1.b. Comparing life expectancies, when even you acknowledge that there are more than just health care system factors (ie diet) is simply not a valid argument for nationalized health care. Since you freely admit that the American diet contributes to the lower life expectancy, then there is no reason to expect that implementing a national health system would change the life expectancy.

2. If a system in a specific state does work as well as is claimed, it will be quickly adopted by the other states with having to be forced from a national level. If it is good, the people will voluntarily adopt it in their states. If it has to be forced nationally from the top down it probably isn’t truly good. Economically speaking, things are managed with less waste closer to the local level where regional differences can be taken into account and adjustments made. A one size fits all system at the national level ends up being less effective and more expensive.

3. If a good system emerges in one state, the other states will adopt it quickly.

4. Nationalizing the health care system only changes the arena in which the battles and corruption are played out. The greater the power and more extensive the reach, the greater the incentive to manipulate it. If the government were to provide insurance, where do you think they will get the personnel to manage and run this system? They’ll need people who are already experienced, which means they’ll hire from the insurance industry. The corruption just moves to a new, more powerful venue.

5. If the bush administration lied to get us into the war it wasn’t to create death, that was just a side effect. The objective was to gain power and money. Those who lie to establish a national health system aren’t trying to save lives, their objective is to gain power and money. Both are lying to get power, regardless of the stated objective. Neither one is defensible. I do not deny that the health care system is terribly broken and needs to change. But that does not mean that the best solution is a national system.

6. Auto insurance is a state law. And driving is a privilege, not a right. That is why you have to get a license to do it. You can choose not to drive. Plus, you do not use your auto insurance to pay for gas or routine auto maintenance. It is for accidents. But we do use our medical insurance to pay for routine doctor’s visits and care. That is part of why it is broken.

More later…as time permits.

2. Agreed, I think all state should have their own options but if the Mitt Romney plan works so well why should it not be implemented every where? Why have a million different wheels if we have one that works quite well. For the sake of simplicity would it not make sense to have a cohesive health plan throughout the United States? And economically speaking would not it be cheaper to have one cohesive plan throughout the country?

3.Changing in increments makes sense. Over what period of time though? 10, 50, 100 years?

4.I’m not sure I understand the predicament of that question fully. Countries who have state run healthcare have different political parties (for that matter more than 2) and healthcare is still running for everybody, no matter what their political affiliation. Was that the concerned?

5)I fully agree that numbers can be manipulated to make them say whatever you want them to say and both parties use that to their full advantage. One cannot hide behind that truth to deny that there is a healthcare crisis. As a matter of fact medical bills prompt more than 60% of all US bankrupcies (from people who have insurance). http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/
I see a weird dichotomy in your predicaments though. One is lying to go to war and create death, the other is lying to create a better healthcare for a general population and save lives. Which of these two lies is worse?

6. I’ll be honest I don’t know if it’s a state or federal law but I am forced to purchase auto insurance in order to legally drive my car. Also I am forced to vaccinate my children in order to have them in public school. But what about Medicare and the 10th Amendment then? Isn’t Medicare forced upon us? I sure pay for it every month! Should we go to the Supreme Court to abolish Medicare as it is a violation of the 10th amendment?

7. Are you ok with the imposed Medicare program? If not, why?

8.I agree they should, as well as abolish the anti-trust exemption. Now does not it stand to reason though, that sooner or later if we were to open state borders those major companies would re-align their prices? Do you think they would choose the lower premiums or the higher premiums in this price realignment? The reality is that the industry is really controlled by only a handful of companies: BCBS, Aetna, Kaiser, United healthcare. Open up state lines and the small companies will be either bought over or die. Isn’t it why they closed up state lines in the first place?

9.Ok so the private sector can have access to all your medical information and profile you, but not the government cause it would be different, how?
First of all the government already has access to medical records, hello Medicare!!! Second the private sector aligns their profiling to you guess who: Medicare!!!! Medicare guidelines are the private sector’s guidelines.
Now if you think the private sector is so much better than the state run one you are in for a lot of disillusion as soon as you are going to be faced with a serious illness (which I do not wish on anybody). For instance the private sector can drop you at anytime once they consider your physical ailment a liability to them. For instance if you were ever diagnosed with Fibromyalgia, Chron’s disease, Ulcerative Colitis, Cancer, HIV etc,etc, etc, good luck finding a private insurance to cover you if you decide to leave corporate America to work for yourself/own your own business. And if you get diagnosed with these terrible ailments while working for yourself you will get dropped like a rock, not matter if you paid high premiums for 10, 15 years. It’s part of their contract, read the small prints. It happens everyday.
Again the private sector controls and decides what kind of care they will let you have access to. The medical doctor will tell you, you need this and that to get better but your insurance will tell you, we will only pay for this because that one is considered experimental (understand:too expensive for our taste).

Again 60% of bankruptcies in the US are medically related (from people who had insurance)

Also I would like to remind the audience that most industrialized nations have government run healthcare and it has never affected the private lives of their citizens. There are no death panels in Europe, lol!

10.You’re right so let’s create another entity all together, another branch of government dedicated to that function. Oh wait, it already exists, it’s called Medicare.

11.I’m all about it, which means again that we need cohesiveness throughout the nation. Which means all plans will have to realign themselves. See number 8