I'm pretty much agaisnt the goverment being involved in my life or that of my children anymore than it must be.

Yes... how evil of the government to want to actually PROVIDE your children with medical care... how rude of them to want to provide a means of saving their life should they become sick... how DARE they remove your right to allow them to die unneccessarily.

Honestly, I REALLY hope your kids never get sick, because they don't stand a chance with an attitude like yours. And as Transit's said, a refusal to get your child medical treatment is abuse in the eyes of the law.

Sorry, I think it's crazy to expect the government to provide for my children at all! Pretty sure the government didn't give birth to them!

What does giving birth have to do with anything? Drug addicts give birth. Alcoholics give birth. Women who later go onto abuse their children give birth. Giving birth to a child does not equate to the woman having the ability to care for them properly.

Many many children require government help to escape abusive or neglectful families (I'm not saying that's you, I'm talking about other families). And many many parents CANNOT provide their children with healthcare because they simply do not have the money (and if God provided for every Christian family... there would be no Christian children without healthcare, but there ARE!). Why on earth is it crazy to allow the government to provide healthcare and SAVE lives, if the parents are unable to do so?

What IS crazy is to allow people (including children) to die because they're poor and don't have enough money for treatment.

You don't seem to mind the fact that the government is paying towards your education which you have yourself admitted that you have wasted multiple times.

The child that died who Redfraggle has mentioned, her parents opted for medical treatment as a last resort, a last resort is too late. By planning to deny your children medical treatment until they need to be rushed to hospital is forcing your beliefs on them and would be considered abuse in court.

Did you refuse pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, blood tests and diabetes screening before your child/ren were born?

In answer to your second question... your choice to opt out of public schools just means providing your child with an alternative method of education. They are still being educated. Opting out of public health care carries the risk of ending up with NO health care. You can provide your children with an education yourself. You cannot provide them with medical treatment. And ultimately, removing your kids from public school does not carry the risk of them dying!

The reform does not require that you participate in a public option if it is included in the bill-do you think that it does?

or, are you saying that you being without insurance, you'd rather stay without rather than become covered under a public plan? Perhaps that is what you meant in your original comment, I should have put this in my other reply.

Yes, that's what I meant. And I, honestly, I wasn't sure if the reform required participation. I haven't read the whole bill yet. Working my way through it, slowly but surely.

Yes, I've always found it rather ironic too that often the Americans who are so anti-public healthcare are the same ones who are anti-abortion. How on earth is it OK to have a child suffer from ill health because their parents can't afford insurance... but abortion is not OK? That's extremely hypocritical. And if abortion WAS to be illegal, how do these people think these many additional children would be provided with healthcare??

I do hope you're not referencing my thoughts about illegal immigration as it pertains to health care. I am not trying to promote the slow and painful death of cancer patients. My issue with illegal immigrants in our ER's and the ridiculous cost of our health care are two separate issues. Just because I think illegal immigration needs to be dealt with does NOT mean I am a cheerleader for our current health care system.

But by refusing a system that will provide healthcare for ALL, you ARE promoting the slow and painful death of cancer patients.

I know you don't support the current system as it is. But you haven't said what system you WOULD support. And you're quite clear that you don't support Obama's bill... a bill that will save millions of lives. So by NOT supporting the bill, you are effectively supporting the current system anyway. And it is a system which is allowing many people to die unneccessarily.

You have also quite clearly given your concerns about illegals immigrants as a reason why you don't support Obama's bill (even although there's no reason why Obama's system should be abused by illegals anymore than the current system is. :P).

I have stated to you that I support reform of our current system - regulation of the already existing private insurance companies would be far better than a large-scale government invasion on our rights to spend our money as we see fit. Affordable health care can be achieved without big government helping themselves to my paycheck.

But under a pay-for-care system, it will NEVER be affordable for everyone. More affordable, possibly, but there will always be people who go without because they can't afford it. And there will always be people who die for that reason. The only way to prevent those deaths is a system which EVERYONE can access, regardless of how much money they have.

It's beyond me how a country that thinks it is their personal right to own firearms does not think it a personal right to have access to free healthcare! There's so much irony in that it could make a thinking person sick!

Having lived in both cultures I definitely know which one I find best!

Hey there.. is this the correct link to the 1000 page bill that everyone is bitching about?

http://obama-healthcare-reform.com/?cat=17

Another issue which hasn't been discussed is the fact that a private insurance based system discriminates against those with pre-existing conditions. A national health service doesn't. One of my friends has just married her American boyfriend and is moving over there. She has had ulcerative colitis (a form of inflammatory bowel disease) for many years. This means she needs to take regular medications, have regular camera tests to check out her bowel for cancer, and there's a small chance that one day she may require surgery. In the UK she gets all of this for free.

But because of her condition, when she moves to the US, her health insurance premiums will be significantly higher. She doesn't smoke, drinks little alcohol, and has had the condition since she was a teenager. The fact she has it is just bad luck... but the American system of health care punishes her for this bad luck by making her pay extra in health insurance. How is that fair?

I watched Sicko this evening. I'd never seen it before and it was absolutely shocking. And that was about people WITH health insurance, including people who had died because their insurance companies had refused to pay for their treatments.

I suggest anyone who hasn't seen the movie, but supports the current system should watch it and then please explain how they can justify the way those people were treated by their wonderful system.

I think every American, who hasn't already should watch Sicko. It can be viewed online for free at the link below.

Sicko

I'm going to watch this when I get home tonight!

It's a good idea to share that! I would have since I've seen it, but I did not realize it was available for free.

People don't seem to understand that Obama's plan is not forcing people to have nationalized health care. He is forcing people to buy insurance for themselves or pay a penalty if they do not buy insurance. If people had the money to buy insurance, they would. But we do not have the money.

Anyone who reads me knows that I suffer greatly and am in pain 24/7 from a broken vertebrae, nerve damage in my back and legs, herniated and collapsed discs in my back, and disc degeneration disease (among other illnesses I've had, including cervical cancer). For over 2 years I have not had a single day without excruciating pain. I spend about 45% of my TAKE HOME (net) pay each month on medication AFTER insurance. I have some of the best health insurance offered in our state, and I still pay that much of my take home pay in medication just to take the edge off of the pain I am in every day. Because so much of my take home pay is spent simply on medication, there are other bills (student loans, medical bills, doctors, radiologists, MRI centers, credit cards, etc) which go unpaid each month. I only have enough to survive barely and pay the most important bills: mortgage, car note, utilities. I do not even have insurance on my car because I cannot afford it.

And I cannot get any government, or charitable, assistance at all because they look at my GROSS pay and say that I am slightly above poverty level for a single woman with no children and I do not qualify for any help at all. I cannot file for disability from the government because I am employed, despite being legally disabled, and I cannot quit my job because I need the income and the insurance. Unfortunately, where I work is not going to renew my contract after next month because, you guessed it, my health is so bad that I have to miss work and go to the doctor and have procedures and surgeries on my back. I CAN see their point, but they do not seem compassionate to my situation at all. Is that fair?

Is it fair that right now, or more so after I lose my job, that I will suffer even more than I already do now at the hands of our own government? I always pay my taxes, and put money into the pockets of the very people who will screw me over time and time again when given the opportunity.

It has never made sense to me that we live in a country where people think that we have a "right" to education but do not think that we have a "right" to healthcare. So, they want you to be sure to get a college education so that you can die with a degree from an illness that they could have prevented or treated with some simple health care. The same people who rally against abortion are the very same ones who would let that child die from an illness rather than provide them with any health care at all for free.

Some of our very own policies made by agencies such as the EPA and the FDA are what is making some people sick anyway. It is not normal for our cattle to be pumped up with steroids, fed corn, and then when they get bacterial infections in their stomachs we pump them full of super-antibiotics, all of which ends up in our stomachs and affects our health. Companies are dumping toxic waste into the ground, and the EPA looks the other way as long as they are being paid off OR as long as the "levels are not above xyz." What level of ANY toxic materials is GOOD for them to be dumping into our ground which goes back into our water supply? NONE. But the government does not think that way. Our government doesn't anyway.

I have worked full-time since the day I graduated high school 12 years ago. I worked my way through college - I did not "party" my way through college living in a dorm and having fun with my friends like some people out there right now. I pay my taxes. I do what I am supposed to do in terms of all of that. I do not believe in people living off the system unless it is necessary and I am pissed as hell that some people's abuse of the system is the very reason that I cannot get any help when I so desperately need it. And I am even more pissed that people who know nothing about me, or my condition, would gladly deny me healthcare simply because they think that people should have to "work" for it - and I HAVE WORKED FOR IT. But if they were sick, would they not want some assistance also?

I do not agree with Obama's plan in some ways and in others I do; but I do think that our healthcare industry desperately needs an overhaul before it is too late for someone like me. I am not even yet 30 years old, and I have many more years of being screwed by our government and the medical community, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical conglomerates. Is that right? Would you want to walk in my shoes? Maybe before people start saying no to helping the less fortunate, they should first be grateful they are not in that position and think about what they would do if they were.