Kat, I have always liked the way you think.

This article puts the question into either the correct prospective, or the wrong prospective, depending on your point of view. As I said earlier in this thread, when you make it personal (and saying, "I can categorically state that had we not established Medicare in 1966, my father would have died." makes it very personal indeed) you have no choice but to be in favor of universal healthcare coverage. That is, unless you have a stone for a heart. If I could, I would pay for all of my friends to have healthcare coverage. Let's see, at $1,200.00 US per month. times all of my friends, I would be broke in about… less than one month. So, the question remains, do you make national policy on emotion? Or, do you make national policy on something remotely resembling fact. The fact is, the USA can't afford it any more than I could. If the USA goes broke, how are we helping anyone? A cost of over $1 trillion (too many 0's) will put the USA into debtor nation status far further than we are right now.

I would rather help folks the good old-fashioned way. If there is someone who needs healthcare coverage that doesn't have it, let each of us pay for one person until that person can pay for himself/herself. It is an unwieldy way to handle it, and full of problems, but it is accomplishing the goal of covering folks without breaking the bank. I know, it's not very practical, but then again, I'm not often very practical. Heheh.

Keep the Faith!