Alice: I think you are nothing of the kind; you'd pay if you were able. I'm sorry if I came off attacking you--Kend was my target. There are those who CAN PAY but think they'll never get sick or wish to pass that cost onto others; they work with my husband; they (conservatives, for the most part) can afford to get and pay for insurance, but they think other people should be responsible for them.

Yes, insurance is a racket--I usually have to fight for the benefits I'm paying for. I'm all for universal; it's the humane choice. I think I do say that I'm glad the government is helping those people pay; I have no problem with that.

I am the guardian of my elderly mentally disabled aunt and uncle; they depend on the state of Ohio to take care of their medical needs; their bills come to my home. My don't-rain-on-my-parade mother, their sister, has left them in my hands, so I am glad for the help they get, believe me. I could not afford to pay their bills and do not begrudge anyone the RIGHT to healthcare or the help to pay for it.

Alice: Have a great day! There are more people pulling for and fighting for you than you know. Here's hoping we'll get there--if not for us, then our children.

Yes, but not for the reason cited in the question. The SCOTUS doesn't answer to the Republicans, or Conservatives any more than they answer to the Democrats or Liberals. They answer, like the Democrats and Republicans, to the corporate interests which runs Washington. What they want they get. All the arguing and fighting is over over the scraps and "keeping up appearences". Nothing more.

Reply to #13: Elioflight, I understand where you are coming from, pointing out how those refusing to pay into this health "insurance" racket are adding to the burden of those like yourself who have coverage. But it still is extortion. I’m aware that most people aren’t in the habit of calling it that, but that is exactly what it is: EXTORTION. And your post exemplifies how our current system pits people against one another; i.e. “My premium is higher because you refuse to buy insurance.” If my husband & I weren’t fortunate enough to live in a state where medicaid was available, I would be one of those people you are complaining about. The cost of for-profit health “insurance” is so high, it would cripple us financially. We would not have money for anything but healthcare and maybe a few necessities, but undoubtedly (given our limited income), some necessities would have to be compromised or sacrificed for health "insurance". I refuse to put myself in that position. If you think I’m an asshole, a freeloader or whatever, then so be it. But no matter what anyone says, I know where the blame lies: with the goddam extortionists, and the politicians they’ve got in their pockets. That's where we need to direct our attention, instead of blaming people who can't afford insurance.

Hey Thom! Considering that most of my Wifes' clients in her Family Homeless Shelter ( for conservatives; these are couples, or singles that have children and are homeless) arrive in her shelter after SOMEBODY IN THE FAMILY GOT SICK! If it's the Parent a lot of times they just gut it out and keep working unless they are incapacitated, but in MINIMUM WAGE AND BENEFIT AMERICA you miss a few days and you are usually fired whether your kids, or you need medical help. Two weeks later you can't make the rent and BOOM! welcome to the slide to the bottom with only few handgrabs that slow the slide but all end in the street. Because now the RENTS ARE TOO HIGH and cheap units unavailible so they're stuck.

I think we should compile all these factors and use your plan for Social Security in removing the Income Cap on ALL INCOME to drive the remedies for our social needs.

If we moved the budget to classify Maternal, Paternal, sick Days and RETIREMENT INTO A SEPARATE BUDGET funded by expressly earmarked funds paid for by Social Security we would have a single line item that could be compared with the other less desirable items, like War, and see what people really want!

We missed a golden opportunity to expand Medicare forty five years ago when Nixon stepped in and started pushing HMOs which sparked the private insurance companies to start purchasing hospitals all over the country in a plan to corner the healthcare market. Pushback by the public forced legislators to adopt a tiered healthcare plan that allowed people with the ability to pay to select a plan that allowed them to use the private physician of their choice. Hardly a universal system but as much as could be expected with Washington firmly in the pockets of private insurance.

Medicare has only been around for fifty years and the program was implemented in a relatively brief period of time without the multi million Dollar expenditures to develop an automated Website on the Internet. The funding for the program was based on the original Social Security funding system where workers would pay a small tax in each paycheck that would subsidize the operation of the system for existing retirees. This existing system would not be able to fund a comprehensive healthcare system for all citizens and I doubt bringing in additional members in specific age groups over decades would be acceptable to most citizens and it would give the political opposition an enormous opportunity to scuttle the system in relatively short order. Given the burdenous monthly costs of private healthcare insurance born by working families today, with 6 to 8% of that cost going to pay for private insurance companies marketing expenses, I would think that Medicare could easily provide a much more cost effective alternative through an adjusted Medicare tax in each pay check.

A recent addition to available healthcare options can be seen in the growing number of Emergency care centers that are often owned and operated by privately financed groups of medical doctors. Five years ago we had one that was within a mile of our house, now their are four. These clinics have gone a long way toward reducing the throngs of patients flooding hospital emergency rooms who too often have minor medical issues not requiring hospitalization. Those who have serious life threatening conditions can be quickly stabilized by a medical professional before being transported to a distant hospital, increasing the odds of a positive life saving outcome ! These local emergency centers could play a vital role in reducing the costs required to implement a future universal system !

RFord, I live in the UK (have also lived in the USA) and everything you say is absolutely true.

I used to be puzzeled as to why Americans wouldn't want a proper health care system - then it dawned on me: Insurance companies, neocons and Fox 'News' (that channel is an enemy of democracy).

Best of luck to you in the USA, hope you eventually get your proper level of health care.

But Thom, back in 2009 Obama said “No we can’t”. He ignored Medicare while insisting that universal healthcare would necessitate us starting all over from scratch. It was one of the most pathetic speeches I’ve heard Obama make in the six years of his presidency.

Cite sources, chicagotim, it's too easy to bullshit that way. It's an old Fox News trick, "Some people say ... ".

Or, read the article you're responding to and you'll see your comment is not relevant - if not largely false..

Obama an d the Democrats have numerous times tried to ease the pronlem, e.g., preventing SL interest rates from doubling like Republicans were ready have happen - to give the banksters what they were salivating over.

Vermont is one of the most Liberal states, both socially and in terms of Big Government. They did a series of cost estimates and determined that the cost of making sure everyone had full, nearly unlimited access to healthcare was considerably more than even their Deep Dark Blue citizens were willing to fork over.

It's a classic Liberal conundrum. At some point you simply can't tax the 1% any more, and have to dip well in to the middle class to pay the freight.

I completely understand the desire to get everyone healthcare, and by law we are all guaranteed services even if we don't have the ability to pay. That said, I just don't see how we can rationally pay for health insurance for the millions of "working poor". Most of whom, mind you, have cell phones and cable tv somehow...

Here is a great speech by Michael Sheen, a British actor, about how passionate he and the crowd listening is about saving and preserving the United Kingdoms Universal Health Care System called, National Health Service or NHS, from right wing British politicians who are hell bent on destroying it. If you have any doubt that National Health Care is a good idea and that the people that have it love it with a passion, watch this speech and decide for yourself.

The USA isn't the only nation under siege from right wing Corporatist radical ideology.

http://www.ringoffireradio.com/2015/03/all-us-politicians-should-listen-to-this-speech-by-god-believe-in-something/

The most recent poll I can find indicates only 36% oppose a "universal form of Medicare"....worded that way. And I'm sure the majority of that 36% sit brain dead and bug-eyed in front of Foxionaire News most of the day. The vast majority already want what the economists demand. Representative government anyone?...of course not, it got purchased by the Kochs after the five right- wing extremists on the Supreme Court decided they had the right to put a price on it.

Now those same scoundrels may rule against the new Health Insurance Reform Act! Yes, sadly it's still insurance for profit, a baby step forward, but a baby step that's considered too big for the endless greed of big money.