Well, there's certainly no "one answer fits all" solution, and who could condemn a person for not doing all they could to save mom. The question is, How obligated is Joe the Plumber to saving Nancy Polusi's mom?

Now that I am within a year or less of retirement, I have been paying a lot of attention to the cost of medical. The COBRA where I work is $1800 a month. I have heart disease and take a pretty good pile of medicine (still run 5 to 6 miles 4 or 5 days a week). Private plans are a little cheaper, but you have to get into the fine print to figure out what they cover and don't cover - if you can figure it out at all.

My wife is Canadain and we seriously considered moving up to Canada because the medical is so cheap. I determined if you don't have a serious disease or anything that requires specialized treatment you would be ok. If you do have problems that require a specialist or certain testing, good luck, wait in line. Private Health is working it's way in to the picture up there so that has to tell you something. Now, factor in the taxes up in Canada and the deal doesn't look so good and it gets even worse when you factor in the cost of living, which is 30% more on average then down here, it just isn't cost effective for a retiree. Too bad, I love Canada.

I applaud Obama for being willing to take this monster on. However, in the end, I believe there will be very little change and with what little change is made, the politicians will declare victory and it is off the agenda. It is just too damn expensive to make a goverment style health plan work and Americans would never stand for the taxes it would take to create and maintain a half way decent health system. There is too much money in it and that money gets used to keep the status quo in place. Insurance companies, after all, are one of the most powerful lobyist in Congress and in the Legislature and that is flat out wrong IMHO.

However, with such a large population of aging baby boomers, many of whom who have warmed up to the idea of more goverment programs, coupled wtih high unemployment, the politicians may not be able to get away easy on this one. Time will tell.

Our current system of providing health care is broken and flat out immoral.

"The really crappy thing is the bottom line is still: DON'T GET SICK."

Next time I visit my health nut brother that got bladder cancer I'll tell everyone I see in the hospital they should have just not got sick.

I have lived in a country that had socialized medicine (New Zealand) so I believe I have a unique perspective. People that are against socialized medicine often complain that health care will be "rationed". That is true, however, it is also true that in this country under the current system, healthcare is rationed based on the ability to pay. Pick your poison.

Hank, thanks for posting the link. I still haven't had a chance to watch it, but will get to it this weekend.

I am not sure your perspective is all that unique eddie. I have been talking with many of my friends who have lived in Canada, and the rationing is just one of their complaints. The other major complaints that I have heard are long waiting lists, and a much lower level of care than we receive here. What I have read and heard is that England's system isn't much better, perhaps New Zealands is. The president keeps telling us that his plan is different than the all the others, but he still hasn't said how it will be different (maybe it will become clear when I watch his speech). Other than his claim that if we like the plans we are on we will be able to keep them. Well I see that as misleading. I don't decide what my medical insurance looks like, my employer does. Medical insurance is huge overhead, and if there is an opportunity to cut costs, guess what, now I on the government plan.

The other part that concerns me is there still isn't a concrete plan on how to pay for it. Hell they can't even agree what it will cost. The only pseudo plan I have heard is that they were planning to tax those of us who currently have health insurance. But if you work in one of the unions that supported Obama then you are off the hook! WTF is that all about! Hopefully congress will have sense enough to put that on "a level playing field".

Keta, I hope you realize I wasn't making an idiotic statement that "people just shouldn't get sick and that if they do, it is their fault". I was simply pointing out that the only way that MY system works is if I don't get sick. If I got really sick, I'd probably get treatment but then go bankrupt. Would I do it to save my life? Of course. But I'm then stuck with a very different life (not just medically) than I had before the sickness. Isn't insurance allegedly designed to prevent that?

Vic, I don't know why you already seem upset with the "Government" for considering providing a "government option". If you have a problem with going to that plan, your beef should be with your employer, not the government. They would be the one deciding. They could just as easily leave you in worse situation by choosing a different private plan. It seems that some people have a hard time believing that a private plan isn't NECESSARILY better than a "public plan". From what I can tell, the major jist of the plan is to basically create an ADDITIONAL insurance computer that would compete with the private industry. The concern from vested interests is that the public option would be subsidized, effectively unfairly outcompeting the existing private firms. Obama is arguing that a public option could effectively provide that same care for less money because profits (those are BIG TIME profits) would be put back into the system rather than having it go to shareholders.

I agree, KD...and like I said above, those who most often clamor in support of a "free market" (which doesn't actually exist) are the first to clamor against it when the competition it engenders comes home to roost, instead of just affecting their competitors, or some other market or product.

Fish on...

Todd

I am not sure upset is quite the right word, more like really concerned. I don't disagree with you regarding my employer's choice of insurance companies, and your point about moving to a less desirable plan has already happened a number of times. But the reality is small companies who have limited buying power are some of the hardest hit when rates go up. Companies like mine are going to be the second domino that will fall after the un-insured. That might be fine, if I had confidence in government to effectively manage my health insurance, but the fact remains that Social security is projected to be bankrupt about the time I retire, medicare is projected to be gone before that, and welfare is getting scammed by the hundreds of millions.

While I have no love for insurance companies, I think todd's point about this being additional competition is ridiculous. They keep talking about providing a "level playing field" but private companies have constraints that they have to live by. When ever a government program fails, the first thing that happens is congress attempts to fix it by throwing more money at it, which almost never works.

I think there is some truth to the fact that they have some additional constraints, but some of those additional constraints are high profit margins, some of which come through the avenue of denying treatment and/or coverage, neither of which is good for any insureds, no matter how much money it saves for the insurance CEO's.

Fish on...

Todd