I'm perfectly happy with health care the way it is. However, I believe that the Democrats are actively addressing the issue, while the Republicans know the people don't want to hear what they have to propose, so they dodge the issue.

Let's see...

Do I want:

A - bad health care

or

B - no health care

hmm...

bad health care, or no health care...   bad care or no care...

Boy, that's a tough one.

Again, just as Merc said, there is state sponsored medical assistance for low income families.

Not to mention by law there's no responsibility to pay hospital bills...so...

stratoaxe wrote: Again, just as Merc said, there is state sponsored medical assistance for low income families. Not to mention by law there's no responsibility to pay hospital bills...so...

Boy is that oversimplified.

So how do you explain the 45 million Americans without health care?  Do you think they just forgot to show up?

oldsoldier wrote: What percentage of the 45m are voluntary opt outs, or prefere thier DUB SUV and I-Pods in cost over healthcare. ...I look in the want ads every day, there are jobs, with benifits if you actually wanted one.

Translation:  I don't know anything about the population of people without coverage.  Therefore, instead of trying to find out, I will make unfounded smear statements about them.

I personally do not pay for health care in cash, I earned my free health care

"Free"?  You mean, "paid for by taxes", I believe.  Nobody is pushing "free" health care.

High Voltage wrote: I get free health insurance from my job, and it covers a ton of stuff, so I'm happy with my situation.

By "free" I assume you mean "included as part of my compensation".  That job would pay more if healthcare wasn't included.

Susan Storm wrote: oldsoldier wrote: What percentage of the 45m are voluntary opt outs, or prefere thier DUB SUV and I-Pods in cost over healthcare. ...I look in the want ads every day, there are jobs, with benifits if you actually wanted one. Translation:  I don't know anything about the population of people without coverage.  Therefore, instead of trying to find out, I will make unfounded smear statements about them. I personally do not pay for health care in cash, I earned my free health care "Free"?  You mean, "paid for by taxes", I believe.  Nobody is pushing "free" health care.

Come on, didn't you know that when you don't have healthcare or a job it's because you're lazy? I mean, when OS was young everyone worked, everyone in his age group is a hardworking good ole' boy. I had seen just as many 50 and 60 year old good ole' boys out of work and in jail then I did these young adult punks running around.

Ok - since people appear to be determined to focus on the unemployment angle: 

A very sizeable chunk of those without healthcare coverage are NOT unemployed, but either self-employed or working for small companies that do not offer health insurance, and who simply cannot afford it.

And, of course, that includes their children.

Dental hygenists and dentist office receptionists, for instance, often do not have health care coverage.  Most dentist practices are small businesses, and the cost of providing that benefit can be crushing.

Similarly, MANY working people in rural areas, where businesses are often small family-owned shops, do not have health insurance.  These are all hard-working folk, often in constructin/contractor businesses, and they do not have enough money to buy their own health insurance.

Could some/many of these uncovered perhaps move someplace, learn a new skill, find new and better job?  Probably.  But clearly all cannot.

The reality is that the way our economy works, these solutions just are not that easy.

And the, of course, we cannot forget that many of those not covered are children.  I think we can all agree that we should not expect a toddler to get a job with health insurance.  Are we really prepared to let children die because their hard-working parents don't have health insurance?

God wrote: The parent should have thought about affording health insurance before getting lost in the heat of passion. Dune: I hear there is a large market for kiddie porn, if they are old enough walk, they must be old enough to have their pictures taken for money. /sarcasm

If you don't want to work to earn healthcare then you aren't American.

God I love the overdramatism in this thread.

A:) You have no responsibility to take care of hospital debts in this country. They can not discriminate against you just because you can't pay. Therefore if your toddler dies because you don't have healthcare and don't want to aquire debt, then you shall be jailed for neglect.

B:) It's not the government's place to make sure you don't get debt from a hospital. While they're at it, pay off my big screen and by Jeep. It's my American right to be debt free, after all.

C:) There is Medicaid in place for low income families in all fifty states.

D:) Nice sarcasm, but it is the American's responsibility to take care of themselves. Any child, regardless of income, from birth until a certain age, is eligible for Medicaid.

E:) Allowing the government to take control of the healthcare system in America will only degrade the quality of healthcare you receive.

merc wrote: ^ never been to a navy "doctor" have you?

I would have said “military” doctor and not limited it to the Navy.  Ever heard the expression you get what you pay for?  If applies to the so called “free” health care.  I got an early retirement (medical) and get to deal with the VA for the rest of my life courtesy of some loser military doctors who made decisions regarding my healthcare that were not only cost-based instead of care based, but were also regarding matters outside their area of expertise/training.  (In the civilian world, it would be malpractice, in the military managed healthcare system, there is no recourse; expect national managed care to work the same way.) Yes, I’m bitter.

Susan Storm wrote: oldsoldier wrote: What percentage of the 45m are voluntary opt outs, or prefere thier DUB SUV and I-Pods in cost over healthcare. ...I look in the want ads every day, there are jobs, with benifits if you actually wanted one. Translation:  I don't know anything about the population of people without coverage.  Therefore, instead of trying to find out, I will make unfounded smear statements about them.

Translation:  I don’t know anything about the population of people without coverage either, but I find it easier to attack OS than it is to provide facts to counter his “unfounded smear statements.”

Susan Storm wrote: oldsoldier wrote: I personally do not pay for health care in cash, I earned my free health care "Free"?  You mean, "paid for by taxes", I believe.  Nobody is pushing "free" health care.

This is a very true statement, nothing is “free” . . .

Susan Storm wrote: High Voltage wrote: I get free health insurance from my job, and it covers a ton of stuff, so I'm happy with my situation. By "free" I assume you mean "included as part of my compensation".  That job would pay more if healthcare wasn't included.

. . . which is why I was confused by the reply above.  Yes HV’s job would pay more if healthcare wasn’t included, but his taxes would also go up to cover the “free” healthcare.   Given the notable inefficiency of government programs compared to the private sector, it is quite easy to imagine a scenario where his “free” healthcare would actually cost more and provide less.

evillepaintball wrote:  Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.  The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.

One of the purposes of the constitution, and the republic form of government as opposed to true democracy, is to prevent such a “dictatorship of the people” from occurring.  The theory being that constitutional protections will protect minorities who can’t protect themselves from unfair laws or “legal persecution.”  Usually, this seems to work.  However, there have been notable failures such as the “Jim Crow” laws of the south after the civil war and the anti-sedition acts (complete with loyalty oaths and flag-kissing) during the World Wars.

• The frivolous lawsuits that people file and win exemplify both a lack of personal responsibility and a sense of entitlement.  (Mr Judge, I did something amazingly stupid that no one in their right mind would have considered trying with an otherwise safe item.  Please decide it’s not my fault and I deserve a buttload of money from the hard-working people who produced the item in question without taking into consideration what a total idiot I am.)
• The sudden push for national health care.  (Someone else should take care of me if I get sick and I shouldn’t have to pay for it.)

God wrote: The parent should have thought about affording health insurance before getting lost in the heat of passion.

*Which I am.

**I think it was sarcasm.  I took the "/sarcasm" at the end to include the entire statement.  If I was wrong, I apologize.

Hysteria wrote: stratoaxe wrote: A:) You have no responsibility to take care of hospital debts in this country. They can not discriminate against you just because you can't pay. Therefore if your toddler dies because you don't have healthcare and don't want to aquire debt, then you shall be jailed for neglect. Right, because spending outside of ones means can be equated to ones toddler falling ill for something the parent had little control over.

No, but not taking your child to the doctor because you don't want debt is something you have control over.

Man Bites Dog wrote: stratoaxe wrote: E:) Allowing the government to take control of the healthcare system in America will only degrade the quality of healthcare you receive. Other countries seem to be running just fine on this "degraded" healthcare.

Other countries aren't America. I've met the doctors that work for federal institutions such as the VA. You don't get the same care.

stratoaxe wrote: God I love the overdramatism in this thread. A:) You have no responsibility to take care of hospital debts in this country. They can not discriminate against you just because you can't pay. Therefore if your toddler dies because you don't have healthcare and don't want to aquire debt, then you shall be jailed for neglect.

Wrong and wrong.

Wanna guess what happens to your credit rating if you keep not paying your hospital bills?

And while you can if fact take your deathly ill toddler to an ER, what you cannot do is take him to your neighborhood pediatrician to get regular shots, checkups, medicine for ear infections, early diagnoses for childhood disease, and the million other little things that doctors do.

And do you also think that the pharmacist will just let you have all the medicine you need?

ER =/= healthcare

B:) It's not the government's place to make sure you don't get debt from a hospital. While they're at it, pay off my big screen and by Jeep. It's my American right to be debt free, after all.

Relevance?

C:) There is Medicaid in place for low income families in all fifty states.

Yes, and many people do not qualify.  Because they make too much money for Medicaid, but not enough to buy their own.  That gap is what makes up much of the uninsured.

D:) Nice sarcasm, but it is the American's responsibility to take care of themselves. Any child, regardless of income, from birth until a certain age, is eligible for Medicaid.

So, basically your position is that we shouldn't have socialized medicine because we already have it?  And all those 45 million uninsured are just lying?

E:) Allowing the government to take control of the healthcare system in America will only degrade the quality of healthcare you receive.

I didn't realize that "government control" was the only alternative...

Mack wrote: Translation:  I don’t know anything about the population of people without coverage either, but I find it easier to attack OS than it is to provide facts to counter his “unfounded smear statements.”

Au contraire - I provided additional detail later.  I figured most people already knew how this worked, and didn't want to waste my time to state the obvious.

Mack wrote: . . . which is why I was confused by the reply above.  Yes HV’s job would pay more if healthcare wasn’t included, but his taxes would also go up to cover the “free” healthcare.   Given the notable inefficiency of government programs compared to the private sector, it is quite easy to imagine a scenario where his “free” healthcare would actually cost more and provide less.

My point here was simply to reinforce the "no free" part, whether health care is employment based or otherwise.

Either way, we all pay in the end.

As to cost - while I generally agree that market solutions lead to lower prices, we do not have a particularly efficient health care market in this country, and I believe we are overpaying.  There are plenty of studies out there suggesting that we might end up paying less for health care through a single-payer system than we do now.  Obviously hard to gauge the accuracy of those studies, but I would not assume that things will automatically become more expensive.

Susan Storm wrote: Wrong and wrong. Wanna guess what happens to your credit rating if you keep not paying your hospital bills?

I work for my hospital and understand the hospital policies around my country, the general bottomline monthly payment is $10 per month. The funny part is that most people feel that they are owed their health care, and refuse to pay. You'd be surprised how few people care about their credit rating.

Susan Storm wrote: And while you can if fact take your deathly ill toddler to an ER, what you cannot do is take him to your neighborhood pediatrician to get regular shots, checkups, medicine for ear infections, early diagnoses for childhood disease, and the million other little things that doctors do. And do you also think that the pharmacist will just let you have all the medicine you need?

See Medicaid. Babies and toddlers are eligible for medicaid that other people might not be on higher incomes. The state generally makes sure that babies are taken care of.

Susan Storm wrote: Yes, and many people do not qualify.  Because they make too much money for Medicaid, but not enough to buy their own.  That gap is what makes up much of the uninsured.

State Medicaid reform? Another way to fix the Medicaid problem-dump the people that don't need it. State medicaid is abused terribly. People come to the hospital and get their STD's treated on state budget, people without children, people that simply do not work.

So there's your preview of American socialized medicine-the same thing that happens to the Medicaid and welfare systems, mass abuse that the taxpayer takes the cost for. We can fix what we have.

Susan Storm wrote: Mack wrote: Translation:  I don’t know anything about the population of people without coverage either, but I find it easier to attack OS than it is to provide facts to counter his “unfounded smear statements.” Au contraire - I provided additional detail later.  I figured most people already knew how this worked, and didn't want to waste my time to state the obvious.

If you’re referring to this . . .

Susan Storm wrote: Ok - since people appear to be determined to focus on the unemployment angle:  A very sizeable chunk of those without healthcare coverage are NOT unemployed, but either self-employed or working for small companies that do not offer health insurance, and who simply cannot afford it. And, of course, that includes their children. Dental hygenists and dentist office receptionists, for instance, often do not have health care coverage.  Most dentist practices are small businesses, and the cost of providing that benefit can be crushing. Similarly, MANY working people in rural areas, where businesses are often small family-owned shops, do not have health insurance.  These are all hard-working folk, often in constructin/contractor businesses, and they do not have enough money to buy their own health insurance. Could some/many of these uncovered perhaps move someplace, learn a new skill, find new and better job?  Probably.  But clearly all cannot. The reality is that the way our economy works, these solutions just are not that easy. And the, of course, we cannot forget that many of those not covered are children.  I think we can all agree that we should not expect a toddler to get a job with health insurance.  Are we really prepared to let children die because their hard-working parents don't have health insurance?

Then I have to go au contraire right back at you.  While those are valid examples, they are not meaningful statistics, and thusly I find them no more compelling than the generalizations provided by the “get-a-job” side of the argument.  Do I believe we have a health-care coverage problem in this country?  Yes, I do.  But I don’t know the statistical significance of the problem and I can offer counter examples of people who are utilizing state healthcare for their children b/c they can’t afford coverage or pay off their debts but they can afford new cars and big screen TVs.  However, all that is, is examples, not evidence of a widespread problem or an indicator of the exact nature/size of the problem.

What I do think would help with healthcare costs and possibly make it easier to afford would be a little more common sense in the legal system.  If a doctor operates drunk or makes an egregious error, then he deserves to suffer financially.  If he correctly utilizes the current approved procedure, which is found out later (due to medical advances) to have unpleasant side effects, then he does not deserve punishment.  In the same vein, if a drug company sells a drug that was FDA approved and it turns out to have side-effects that were not discovered at the time, that should not be treated the same as a company that hides evidence of such problems to make money.

Susan Storm wrote: Mack wrote: . . . which is why I was confused by the reply above.  Yes HV’s job would pay more if healthcare wasn’t included, but his taxes would also go up to cover the “free” healthcare.   Given the notable inefficiency of government programs compared to the private sector, it is quite easy to imagine a scenario where his “free” healthcare would actually cost more and provide less. My point here was simply to reinforce the "no free" part, whether health care is employment based or otherwise. Either way, we all pay in the end. As to cost - while I generally agree that market solutions lead to lower prices, we do not have a particularly efficient health care market in this country, and I believe we are overpaying.  There are plenty of studies out there suggesting that we might end up paying less for health care through a single-payer system than we do now.  Obviously hard to gauge the accuracy of those studies, but I would not assume that things will automatically become more expensive.

Then we essentially agree on the “no free ride” part.  I don’t put much faith in the studies that show centralized healthcare would be cheaper.  My experience with the government is that inefficiency has a life of its own.  Of course, they could always throw in an oversight agency to monitor that, but it would only add to the cost.

Oh, and by the way:  Quit editing while I’m trying to quote/reply dagnabit!  It’s very annoying.

Afterthought:  It would be great to get some opinions/experiences from the folks who actually have dealt with government managed care systems.  I lived in the UK in the mid '80s and what I say was people who were really unhappy about the tax rates receiving medical care that was about 15 years behind the US when the available technologies were compared.  However, that may no longer be true.  Maybe some of our Canadian forumers have info to share.

God wrote: Mack wrote: . . . if they can’t afford their rug-rat menagerie, how does that make it my responsibility to subsidize their excessive procreational tendencies? It does not make it your responsibility. It makes it the responsibility of the government that allows it to occur. If you dislike this governmental stance, have Congress change it. Until then, the government is responsible and the government will use your tax money that they already take from you and spend it on what they wish. If there is not enough money to go around after taxes are taken then other programs/funding should be cut.

I must admit to being at a loss for a solution here.  While mandatory sterilization and parenting licenses with fees/fines/punishments would probably have the desired effect, the thought of such laws being enacted offends my sensibilities and scares the heck out of me. 

Maybe mandatory personal-responsibility classes/brainwashing?  (That part was a joke by the way.)

Evil Elvis wrote: I'm waiting to see how the new "Mandatory Health Insurance" law ends up working in my state Massachusetts before I make any kind of opinion.

I think we all are.  Hopefully we will all be mature enough to look at and learn from the results rather than just twist them to our preset opinions.

Mack wrote: Afterthought:  It would be great to get some opinions/experiences from the folks who actually have dealt with government managed care systems.

I clearly prefer the care I get here in the US.  No comparison.  But then, I GET care here in the US.  I might feel differently if I did not have coverage.

And, of course, I pay a frighteningly large amount of money for that health care.  In my case, I have very good reason to believe that my total health care costs would decrease significantly in a socialized system.  My situation doesn't generalize well, but there it is anyway.

Mack wrote: If you’re referring to this . . . Susan Storm wrote: Stuff Then I have to go au contraire right back at you.  While those are valid examples, they are not meaningful statistics, and thusly I find them no more compelling than the generalizations provided by the “get-a-job” side of the argument.

Again, I guess I am surprised that this is even an issue.  It didn't occur to me to provide actual stats.

This is not some big state secret.  Many demographic studies have been done on who does and does not have health insurance, and every one of them points to people that fall between Medicaid and employer-based insurance.

One minute on Google gave me this:  http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7451-021.pdf - http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7451-021.pdf

There are others as well.  This issue has been fairly well examined.  While we may not understand the solution or even the cause, we do have a good handle on the status quo.

rednekk98 wrote: SS, show me all the stats you want as to what type of people are on social welfare programs, what type of education they've had, what color they are etc, stats like those are not taking into effect character and cultural values, which are a lot harder to quantify. More of the people I have personally dealt with, including people I like, who have been on food stamps and other such things, are people I consider to be deficient in terms of motivation.

I think you read it backwards, rednekk.

The whole point I am making is that these are people that are NOT on social welfare programs.  Most people that are NOT covered by any health insurance at all, government or otherwise, HAVE jobs and are hardworking folk.

I am specifically trying to say that "get a job" is not useful, because most of these people already have jobs - often more than one.  These are not unmotivated people.  These are not slackers.  These are not welfare cases.  The welfare cases get healthcare.  It's the people that are trying to get OFF welfare that get stuck, because welfare provides better benefits than most low-end jobs.

This has nothing to do with personal character.

Mack wrote: Fictional Conversation Example: Person with inadequate financial resources (PWIFR):  I want children/am too excited to use birth control right now. Other person (OP):  But if you have children you can't afford to take proper care of them. PWIFR:  What do you mean: OP:  You know, pay for food, clothing, healthcare, etc. PWIFR:  Oh, it's okay. I'll let everyone elses taxes do that for me. OP:  What if theres a popular tax revolt and those programs lose funding? PWIFR:  Well, I really want kids/was too excited to prevent them, that's what matters. Either way, it's self-centered, selfish, irresponsible thinking.

I certainly acknowledge the point you are making.  But allow me to offer another fictional conversation (please pardon the dramatic hyperbole):

Person A:  What's that?

Person B:  That?  Oh, that's a crack baby.

Person A:  What is a crack baby?

Person B:  Well, the kid was born addicted to crack.  The mother was smoking crack while pregnant.  She was also too lazy to work a real job, and was hooking to pay for the drugs.  She is HIV positive - the kid probably is too.

Person A:  Bummer.

Person B:  I guess.  But hey, the mother made some poor choices.  She shouldn't have gotten pregnant while on crack, HIV positive, and without the money to pay for the kid.  She can't take care of the baby, even if she wanted to.

Person A:  Yeah, that was dumb and irresponsible.

Person B:  The good news is that it's all the mother's fault, so I am not going to worry about the baby.  Not my problem if the baby lives or dies - it's all the mother's fault anyway.  Children dying are not my problem, unless they are my children.

Person A:  I agree.  Shall we have crumpets with our tea?

rednekk98 wrote: You think social services wouldn't step in already in the crack baby case? How about more funding for clinics in low income areas to provide depo shots or something? Goddamn, aren't there enough social programs out there to take care of this crap already without having to go to socialized medicine?

I wrote: (please pardon the dramatic hyperbole)

I know my example was overblown.  The point I was trying to make was that we, as a society, are not (and should not be) willing to allow children to suffer great harm simply due to the incompetence of their parents.  Crack babies often get taken care of - but those millions of kids caught in the cracks (sorry) right now are not.

I would suggest that we have a moral duty to, at a bare naked minimum, provide some degree of care for the children.

Hitman wrote: Guys, I think we should have private police protection. I live out in the country. I can't think of a single time I have ever had to call the police. I'll probably need to maybe once or twice in my life max. It should just cost you certain rates depending on your emergency. I'll pay for each individual bullet they fire defending me.

Excellent point.

People get very excited about health care, yet take for granted the myriad of other socialist/nationalized programs we have in this country, such as police and fire protection, public schools, roads and public works, military protection, social security, and many more.

And the military, BTW, has NOT been privatized.  Using military contractors hired by the government is completely different from a private system (like our health care system) where people would simply hire their own armies.  "Public" doesn't mean that everybody has to be drawing a salary from the gubment.

oldsoldier wrote: Please Susan, enlighten us on the statistics of voluntary opt outs, ineligable (illegal alien) and just plain not in the families/individuals financial/responsibility priorities of the 45,000,000 without health care.

Much of that was in the random report I linked to.  According to that report, there are 37 million Americans WITH JOBS that are uninsured.

According to that report, only 61% of employers offer health insurance.  SIXTY-ONE PERCENT!  That's not even two-thirds.

And then, of course, there are the clever part-time employers like Wal-Mart - they offer health benefits to full-time employees, but make sure that most of their employees are part-time, and thereby ineligible for benefits.  Many uninsured folk work well above 40 hours per week, but don't have a full-time job, and are therefore not covered.

According to the report, only 19% of uninsured have "no connection to the workforce".  80% of uninsured are citizens of the US - no breakdown given of the immigration status of the non-citizens.

Read the report I linked.  I picked it randomly, but it presents data in an easy format.  I cannot vouch for its accuracy, but it is consistent with what I have read elsewhere.

oldsoldier wrote: That is the problem with the current statistics, each .org will have biased numbers based on agenda.

Oh no - you don't get to casually dismiss the numbers.  You asked me to back up my claims, and I did.  Then suddenly numbers don't matter?

Unacceptable copout.

If you provide numbers of your own I will look closer, but until then my numbers stand unopposed as presumptive truth.

Not saying that some form of "universal" health care is not needed, but a "managed" or yes "rationed" health care, with a two tiered system developing for the haves and have nots will be no better than the HMO's and other "plans" managing health care today for the haves and have nots.

And something like that may well be the answer.  I am not sure Americans are ready for true socialized medicine.

We discussed the "VA System" before, and if the Government can not properly and effectively manage a system with @10,000,000 enrolled how will they manage effectively a system enrolling 360,000,000.

Well, they manage other public institutions fairly well.  I'm not sure that extrapolating from the VA is entirely fair.

oldsoldier wrote: Thats another point, I could find totally differant numbers on a more right leaning org, so what is the point of publishing numbers, too many info orgs.

Show me some.

Show me some numbers stating that most uninsured are also unemployed or illegal.  Or whatever.

Show me some.

You challenged me to back up my claims, and I did.  Now it's your turn.

oldsoldier wrote: Progressive view a .org: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0830-01.htm - http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0830-01.htm US Census a dot gov: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0830-01.htm - http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0830-01.htm Another .org: http://www.cbpp.org/8-29-06health.htm - http://www.cbpp.org/8-29-06health.htm A March 27 .com citing fall and Census Bureau inflated numbers: http://socalpundit.com/blog/index.php/category/for-your-health/ - http://socalpundit.com/blog/index.php/category/for-your-heal th/ We can go all over the spectrum anywhere from 46m down to 22m depending on agendas.

How do you get 22MM?  I didn't see that anywhere in your links.

A quick scan of your links show pretty much exactly the same numbers as in my link.

So far you are just bolstering the numbers claimed by my link.

oldsoldier wrote: I just did not have time to link them all, just got home and momma hit the door. There are some serious right wing blogs and out there sites that we can cite, but we can forgo that in this tit for tat arguement. The internet is full of references to back any claim made.

No, let's not forego that.  I am not going to let you gloss over this. 

Please cite some sources.  I looked, and could not find any demographics of the uninsured that disagreed significantly with the numbers I posted.  But if the internet is full of them, as you say, it should not be a hardship for you to find this information of which you speak.

Please find me some sources to back your claims.

See, that wasn't so hard.

Your link makes an excellent distinction between people uninsured for the whole year and people uninsured at any one time.

The numbers are not inconsistent - it appears that about 22 million Americans (in 1998) were without health insurance for the entire year, and about 45 million were without insurance on any given day.

So it is a matter of how you count, and both numbers are valid.

That doesn't change the central point I am making, however.  Your link also contains this statement, and many others like it:

The Gubment wrote: Nearly 90 percent of the people who were uninsured all year in 1998 were in families in which at least one person worked, either part time or full time (see http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=4210&type=0&sequence=2#table2 - Table 2 , column 3). Research has found that about 75 percent of the uninsured in working families do not have access to insurance through their employer

The bottom line remains - most people without health insurance are working stiffs, and not lazy bums.  The lazy bums on welfare, they HAVE health insurance as part of the package.  It's the working class that's getting the shaft on this.

CarbineKid wrote: Sues right, its not free. It would be paid for by taxes...So does that mean we will have even higher taxes?

That's the million dollar question, isn't it...

Hard to say.  I seem to remember seeing some numbers indicating that Americans already pay more for health care than anybody else in the world.  Certainly the advocates of single-payer systems claim that it wouldn't cost more, and should even cost less. 

At a minimum it would level the payments out a little - I am in relatively good health, but my health payments are obnoxiously high because of the nature of my co-insureds.  Hard to imagine that my personal payments could go up.  But on a national level?  I'm not sure that anybody knows.