We have one in the UK, and people knock it sometimes, but its free, and its there when you need it most. Nice to see SOME of my tax money well spent, better a cancer treatment than a new tank. :-)

More than higher taxes (Which is inevitable) quality of healthcare is what bother me. I am supporting president in providing free insurance to poor and needy. My problem is I am thinking quality of my healthcare will be suffered if government comes in. It could be a solution for the poor people who doesn't have insurance. But for the existing ones who are looking for quality health care it is not good. Current healthcare providers may increase their premiums now to uinclude government providing healthcare. We will end up seeing more expensive healthcare privately. And slowly when all the people will be forced to take government healthcare and private healthcare institutions will be closed down as they will not be making any profit.

I would be for giving national single payer a try. Of course the politician legislators are not close to being ready to vote for that yet, but the government option for health insurance in the current legislation in progress is a step in the right direction. As far as care being rationed and hard to get, long waits, etc., it seems to me the more intelligently it is run, the fewer of these problems there will be. Is that an oxymoron: intelligent government?

Americans spend more per-capita then any other nation on Earth on health care. Americans health outcomes rank about 30th among all countries (comparable to countries like Costa Rica and Singapore. Do you think that maybe, just MAYBE, the fact that money goes into executives pockets and gold-plated silverware for the company jets, instead of towards ACTUALLY PROVIDING HEALTH CARE TO PEOPLE might have something to do with that? http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2005/05/how-can-1248-million-year-ceo-make.html http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/16/former_insurance_exec_wendell_porter

we have somewhat of one also, free health clinic every county have one. or three.. I think we should start with why are the med's so freaking costly

NO!

Yes. it is only in the best interest of everyone involved that this be done. those who oppose this are greedy tight wads who dont know what the meaning of compassion is, and deserve no consideration.

It is indeed time for *A* national health insurance program. But Obama's plan is far from optimal. And for him to ramrod it through at any cost is disingenuous and irresponsible. There ARE better plans on the table, but he refuses to even consider them.

Yes

Do you have any idea what they are offering and how much the taxes would inflate?

It is a nice thought in theory, but it is majorly flawed. Canada has a huge tax on its health care. The waiting list for preagnancys is 10 months to be aloud to go to the hospital to deliver a baby. It is a 6 month wait to be able to have a biopsy. The numbers say that colon cancer kills people in america roughly about 34% of those who get it. In Canada the rate is 46%. Your normal er visit will triple in the waiting period. The part that scares me the most is the rationing of care clause that they have added. Meaning that after a certain age you become to old to even get health care. Who has the right to descriminate on age? What is a 72 yo developes cancer, they dont get treatment because they are to old? What if they lived a healthy life and could have lived 20 more years? Now they get to die because the government says that they are old. They are trying to get rid of medicare, because it costs so much, and I understand that to some degree. 86% of americans have health care coverage and are content with the coverage that they have. That only leaves 14%, and lets not forget that now any illegal alian that comes into out country now has health care coverage because they are here. The Idea is a great one, but it is just unrealistic.