All I can do is go point by point:

1) The 45 million number you often hear, and is confirmed through AMA research is, not completely uninsurable, which is different than uninsured. There are many people who opt to not spend the money on insurance simply because they don’t think they need it (they believe since they are well, young, whatever it’s a uselss expenditure) or are not purchasing it because it is too expensive perhaps.

2) Those who don’t have insurance (and many people can get on state programs if they are uninsured already…or Medicare…we have Tenncare in TN, that has not done well, but that’s another story) DO get care when they go to the hospital. It is illegal for anyone seeking medical treatment to be turned away, and also highly unethical. There are rules and law regarding this…it simply isn’t done and if it is then a hospital or doctor is liable.

Those costs are absorbed by a hospital typically. Most hospitals are in the red budgetarily speaking. Profits are hard to come by, especially in non-profit facilities like the one my husband works at. But the cost is spread to the other “consumers” because it has to be. These facilities are not just be greedy monsters. They must spread out the absorbed cost to people with insurance because otherwise they’d go out of business.

3) There are, in most mid to large cities, countless free and low income clinics that provide traditional, non emergent care and preventive medicine (well baby checks, test for older people like stress tests etc). We have one in our town and it’s completely non-pay (or by donation for those who choose). It’s private and subsidized by charities. They are part of a network of such places across the country…you can look them up.

4) No child would ever be turned away from medical treatment in any form who didn’t have insurance…again, mandated by law and ethically. If it happens then it’s wrong and illegal. But it’s not the norm. I lived for eight years in Memphis where St. Judes Children’s Hospital is located. It is run by donations and grants ONLY and provides 100 percent free treatment for children suffering from the most horrible/terminal cancers around. They don’t even process insurance there.

5) Most pharmacies now have either free or extremely reduced cost on many (as many as a few hundred) common medications. I, for instance, went to my local Publix not too long ago and go three prescriptions for all of us for an antibiotic for strep throat because we were going on vacation and my youngest child and come down with it (I just knew we’d all get sick since we were going to the beach so I tried to be prepared). All free. We have insurance…and good insurance.

6) My oldest daughter is a Type 1 diabetic. Her medications are unbelievably expensive. And even out of pocket with our good insurance, we pay quite a bit…but MUCH less than we would if we didn’t have insurance. I realize we’re in a good position. But being devil’s advocate here, I must ask you all…how would you feel if someone told you that your insurance might be mandated…that you might be restricted (yes, the government would restrict costs too…they must or else bankrupt the program) or your provider access limited with a child who has a life threatening illness???

Coming from the other side, as a wife of a doctor and of this child, I totally realize that once she’s an adult she is uninsurable under today’s system. And of course that frightens me and worries me. But for now, she has excellent coverage and goes to one of the top children’s hospitals in the world. No, I can’t say that I’d want anything to even remotely hinder that.

So, that’s pretty much all I can offer on these issues for now.

Blurb, my husband has looked at the MA plan and says he’s intrigued by it. He’s just not sure how you can mandate such a thing…what would be (or is) the punishment for not participating? He’s very mixed on the socialization thing. Having worked in the VA system quite a bit, the idea of the government being in control of healthcare across the board worries him. Me too for that matter, but like I said, I have a huge stake in this issue regarding my child. I’m very pleased with where I am and don’t want to lose the options I have now. If it could be a mixed bag of both private and public then I’d be ok perhaps.

I am self-employed and I have a “huge-deductible-major-medical-only-health-insurance-plan” whose monthly dividends skyrocket every year, even though I have never had a claim. Right now I am at the tipping point of being able to make the monthly payments which currently equal the monthly payments of buying a Lamborgini. When I can no longer afford to pay the premiums, does that mean I choose not to buy insurance?

What? Why are the uninsured numbers so high if “they can and do”?

There are tradeoffs for any system. No matter who wins the White House, the days of employer subsidized healthcare are numbered and that has nothing to do with socialism. It has to do with costs. When large companies spend more for health insurance for their employees than they do on their actual products, it’s only a matter of time.

What about Romney’s plan in MA? Does anyone have experience with that plan? Is it more or less expensive? I believe that Obama is going to look to a country like Germany (as it exists today) where there is private insurance, employer subsidized insurance and public assistance (by the state). I also believe that Obama’s plan will look a lot like what Romney did in MA. I could be mistaken.

Now you say, “not only will you see attacks on her, but by implication, the attacks on anyone who could possibly think she’s a reasonable choice for VP.” Why do you think that? Why can’t we just have the opinion that Palin is way out of her league and a very stupid choice for VP (notice I did not call Palin or you stupid, I said it was a stupid choice), but still believe that you have every right to support her if you want. It’s called democracy.

You and faydean need to just be yourselves and stop trying to be McCain and Palin. Maybe you will feel better.

Fayden- I know you apologized and I appreciate that. But that does not change the fact that you made a personal attack on someone else on this blog and then spent a lot of follow-up comments whining about how people were now attacking you. When you sling mud, some of it will land on you.

Thank you for your respectful post.

I said healthcare is available to everyone, and you countered with the number of uninsured. It’s a myth that the uninsured can’t get healthcare in this country. They can and do. It’s just not very efficient.

The numbers of uninsured alone don’t tell us very much. Some are uninsured by choice. It’s a snapshot in time, so some are uninsured at any given moment who have been insured in the past and will be again.

Every system to deliver any type of service, including healthcare, will have tradeoffs. A universal system covers everyone, yes, and that’s a benefit. To me, the costs of a system, and the tradeoffs required, including the tradeoffs in freedom, are not worth it. I understand that for some they are worth it. Many I see making the argument, however, refuse to acknowledge there’s any real tradeoff at all. That’s trying to win the argument with deception.

I guess I should have clarified…Decent, affordable health care is most certainly not available to everyone who needs it now. If it were, I would imagine there wouldn’t be 45 million uninsured Americans in this country today. I don’t think either proposal is perfect, but I’m not sure that Obama’s health care proposal calls for starting from scratch…no more than McCain’s does. Given my family’s situation, we will benefit more from Obama’s plan. And so will most people I know.

I know the debate around here gets pretty spirited. Sometimes the line between attacking the politics and attacking the person becomes a little blurred. Politics tends to bring out that beast in people. But faydean seems to give just as good as she gets. If she really felt attacked, I doubt she would keep coming back.

Faydean wasn’t provoked when she launched her personal attack on Jon in another post (and that was most definitely personal). Yes, I know she apologized for it. I wasn’t attacking her, and I don’t think I said anything that would have implied someone needed to defend her…simply pointing out that given some of the things she’s said on this website, it’s not surprising she’s getting comments. If I didn’t want people coming to my personal website and leaving nasty comments, I wouldn’t link to my website.

What we reveal to others in these comments doesn’t even scratch the surface of who we are as people. I think it’s important to remember that.

Health care IS currently available to those who need it right now. The system just isn’t very efficient. I’d rather work on the relatively small areas where it’s not working, than start over from scratch, wrecking the best system that exists and replacing it with a model that has some well known and large drawbacks. My argument with the left is that the solutions are always rooted in the use of force, and not in voluntary actions.

As to Faydean’s alleged personal attacks, after reading this blog for a few weeks, I don’t think some of the posters here realize how they’ve referred to people who vote Republican. For example, I happen to like Sarah Palin and I don’t think that she’s an obviously unsuitable candidate. Read some of the posts about her, and not only will you see attacks on her, but by implication, the attacks on anyone who could possibly think she’s a reasonable choice for VP. We’re all stupid or evil, it’s continuously implied. Faydean’s posts to me are nothing outside what’s commonly posted here, in fact I would say she’s pretty respectful until attacked.

I’d like to convince everyone who disagrees with me to see things my way. I don’t think what they believe about taxes, or the war, or the proper role of government, or guns reveals much about their intelligence or character. I wish those on the left would give me the same benefit of the doubt. On the Supreme Court, Scalia and Ginsberg are each other’s closest friends on the court and are close personal friends. They should be an example to us all, two people steeped in their own ideology, as far apart as is possible in their opinions, each one demonized by many of the others’ supporters, yet they still see the value of the other as human beings.

all I can say is that I’m truly at a loss. I address people who address me first. And that’s how this started, in comments. I addressed Jon…and then someone decided to address my comment, directly. I responded and there ya go.

My comments, in general, unless I put a name to it, are not directed at anyone inparticular…any more than yours, as you said, are aimed at the GOP. I’ve read all kinds of smears towards Republicans on here. I took them personally, sure. But I didn’t think they were necessarily aimed at me directly, until someone said, “Hey, you, faydean…”.

I’ve been literally told I’m ignorant by commenters on here…and can show you where. I’d like to see where I have said such a thing directly to someone. To the best of my recollection, I never have.

Anyway, as I stated before…if someone chooses to come to my site and leave nasty comments just because of differing political views, they will be blocked. Simple as that. I haven’t even gone to anyone’s blog that is a commenter on here. And if I did, I do think one commenter had some cool photos on Flickr, which I commented about favorably, I just looked at it and that was it.

If I am impressed with someone’s skill or whatever, I will tell them so, even if I disagree with them. I don’t think that is impossible…to appreciate someone at some level or many levels, yet not agree with them about certain things. Hell, I’ve lived with someone like that for 18 years!

Anyway, despite what you might feel, I have not malcontent for anyone that posts here…unless they are purposefully insulting to me. And even then, I try to give them the benefit of the doubt of just being overheated due to the nature of the discussion…politics and religion are good that way.