CNN

M Berger, Minneapolis, MN,

I wasn't saying the economics of healthcare is not a problem. A catastrophic illness can send even the most stable of family incomes into spiraling debt. What I was addressing was Midland Kim's post regarding letting people die and somehow tying that to Christian values. Her post borders on the insane.

Yes, the current system can cause huge personal debt but the individual is still assured of healthcare.

From my understanding of Hillary's mandatory healthcare coverage the individual will still have an out of pocket cost. People do not have insurance because they can't afford it. What makes Hillary think suddenly people will be able to afford her plan and how is she going to get private insurance carriers to keep their rates low? If the carriers aren't going to make a profit they won't provide the service, regardless of what Hillary thinks.

I agree with any candidate who opposes government – run health care. In fact the words "complete government takeover" should scare people, shouldnt' it?

After this run for the White House, I'd be surprised if this senile old fool has enough political capital left to fight for the last chicken wing at a senate cocktail party. Doesnt he realize that he's a laughingstock?

Health care for indigent children is automatically covered under NCCP. Moreover healthcare cannot be denied to an individual regardless of insurance coverage. This does not mean the individual is not still responsible, in part or in full, for the healthcare. Even so, the person in need is guaranteed healthcare.

David, Gilbert Arizona, do you have any idea how many personal bankruptcies are caused by medical bills? Or how many people go to the emergency room for their medical care because they cannot afford the staggering cost of a primary care visit?

The fact that we have people in the US who go to the ER with pneumonia because they couldn't afford a little preventative medicine when they had a little cough is a shocking and entirely damning indictment of the current US health care system.

The AMA – the professional association to which most if not all doctors in the United States belong – is in favor of government-administrated universal health care.

Gee, only $110 billion a year? I wonder how we would get that money? Raise taxes? Then I guess it isn't free. I already pay about $200 a month for healthcare. I bet I would pay an additional $300 for "universal" healthcare and still have to purchase a supplimental policy to get even close to the care I get now. What a good idea. Got to love when the government gets their hand into my wallet even deeper. As if 40% of my paycheck wasn't enough.

I'm with you McCain. Hillary's Communistic command, control, forced Insurance – get the idea? Hillary does not know how to lead, she only knows how to force, big difference. That's not my idea of a leader for America. If her ideas were any good she wouldn't have to FORCE anyone.

Does anyone get it? More government involvement in healthcare means it becomes another talking point to get politicians elected...kind of like the millions of dollars spent to build the multi, multi, multi-million dollar bridge in Alaska to serve 50 people. (I'm not going to quote an exact # here, like most posters or mass media would to prove my point) Bottom line is all US kids should be covered with healthcare (not sure most aren't between state and federal programs) How long are we going to let politicians decide who gets the "pork", "earmarks", etc before the US Public has had enough? On some level, as a free society, this comes back on us...At what point do we decide health insurance for the US public is more important than the pork dollars our given US congressman or senator delivers? As for the US not having great healthcare...must be why every sick world leader is beating down the door to get healthcare here...i.e. Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, John Hopkins, et. al. The quality isn't goofed up like in most countries around the world, just the number covered...Can't we solve this problem of getting more covered without destroying quality and independece of healthcare? I'm not sure I want a politician figuring out how to shift that equation...THEY got us to this point.

I feel that the comments made by Kim from Midland, MI must be addressed. Kim: What in God's name are you talking about? While there may be some obscure religious groups that do indeed think that suffereing is mystical, most do not. And who, may I ask, is an advocate of "letting" anyone die – let alone babies – because it costs too much? The modern fear of Christians is one of those cultural dvelopments that I just don't understand.

So Senator McCain hasn't seen Senator Clinton's Health Care plan yet, but he's already against it.

How consciencious of him.

I guess his solution is something along the lines of, "Let 'em die, it's cheaper to bury them and pay for the funeral."

McCain has no healthcare plans. The only plans he has is prolonging the war in Iraq. Not much of a goal. I wouldn't be critical of Senator Clinton, at least she wants to bring our troops home with a solid plan.

First, the American health care system is not the best in the world by a long shot. Citizens of many countries live longer than Americans and are healthier.

Second, most of us go to an average physician and get the amount of care that the physician's accountant recommends if he is to hit his income targets. My doctor is a nice guy, but he's not Marcus Welby. He does the routine things and hands out the routine pills.

Third, we need to experiment with other methods of delivery. Our current system is designed to minimize lawsuits rather than to maximize health. And no child within the boundaries of these fifty states should go without one innoculation or miss one checkup. Children are external to and unaffected by "free market forces" in any great society.

Fourth, it is true that much medical care if provided for free to the indigent, and thank God for that. What kind of monsters would we be to allow our fellows to be sick when there is medicine to cure them. The poor suffer more health problems than the rich. If the current system delivered its services properly, this disparity would not exist.

We need to experiment with a variety of delivery methods. There is nothing about our current medical system that is so terrific that we have to preserve it like some precious relic. I'm not for socialized medicine, but I'm not for corporate medicine either. We are bound to be smart enough to think of something new.

One of the comments above stated:

"One of the provisions in the Democratic proposals that has generated a lot of discussion is the one mandating that individuals purchase health insurance if they can afford it."

I guess that means that government would force people to buy health insurance. Would you be thrown in jail if you did not buy the insurance? Or, would you be denied health care if you did not buy health insurance?

I'm wondering how government can force you to spend your money in the way government dictates if you don't want to spend your money that way.

Kim, Midland MI,

Health care for indigent children is automatically covered under NCCP. Moreover healthcare cannot be denied to an individual regardless of insurance coverage. This does not mean the individual is not still responsible, in part or in full, for the healthcare. Even so, the person in need is guaranteed healthcare.

The issue you fail to grasp is insurance coverage, not that one party or the other advocates people suffering. Based on your post you have far greater internal demons to deal with than the "hypocritical republicans."

McCain, Put a sock in it already!!

I'm convinced you've lost your mind!

Thank you senator McCain for fighting to keep Hillary Clinton out of my business.

ThirstyJon
freedomthirst.com

Gee John, I sure hope I survive long enough to even GET to Medicare.

Conservative Republicans are the most disgustingly hypocritical people on Earth. Foaming at the mouth about abortion, but once the baby is here, well hell, let it die an agonizing death because it costs too much to cure it. Does that serve your G-d? I think that a lot of Christians have a really warped sense because they think that suffering has some mystical, spiritual significance. So it's better to let people live, as long as it is guaranteed that they suffer enough to honor thier almightly lord.

These people so poorly read that everytime someone talks about universal care, these people give examples of "socialized" care of France and Canada. It is as if people in Canada and France die waiting for their appointments to come through. McCain and Romney are so much down in their polls that they want some attention by their ignorant republican voters who have been told by their so called Republican think tanks that whenever they hear the word Universal Care, and in particular from Hillary, just scream, and shout. Bunch of loosers!

"Who does McCain think runs medicare and medicaid, and the V.A.?"

Yeah, and look at how efficently they run those programs. It currently cost the U.S. Mint two cents to make one penny. These are the people you want in charge of your health care?

I guarentee congress will never give up their current health care

Actually, the Federal Employee Health Benefits program is comprised of multiple private health insurance providers. The government provides administrative support for the program like most employers, but the private health insurance providers deliver the service.

Medicare and Medicaid services are managed and delivered by the government. I hope that description is helpful.

P.S. There are several Republican health care proposals out there. They tend to lean toward market-based incentives and lessened government regulation to lower costs and encourage people to voluntarily purchase health insurance. One of the provisions in the Democratic proposals that has generated a lot of discussion is the one mandating that individuals purchase health insurance if they can afford it. Many Republicans are against government forcing people who don't want to purchase health insurance to do so. A discussion on this topic would be healthy (pun fully intended) but I doubt that we will be engaged either by the press or the political parties to have a substantive discussion on any issue.

Good for Sen. McCain. I certainly don't want nationalized health care. I can't stand government run agencies now. I couldn't or wouldn't even want to imagine how badly they would screw up the health care industry. I like being able to get an appointment in a week and not have it take several months like Canada or the UK. Why do people want to trust the government in this matter is beyond me.

I'm a Clinton man, but when she becomes President I hope she does what Edwards wants and stops the government paid health care to congress and the other elected officials, until all Americans have health care.
Who does McCain think runs medicare and medicaid, and the V.A.?

Hey McCain...give up YOUR government sponsored health care if you oppose it.

A Republican's take on Rebulican Universal Health Care, Provide Care for those that can afford it, do not worried about those that can not.

Does he or any Republican have a Health Care Plan for this country?

Next Republicans are going to fight against Government control of fire fighting, law enforcement, education, and the mail.

Who is McCain kidding? Medicare is government-run health care. So is the health care plan for Senators and Congresspeople. His comment is ignorant and intended to instill fear in people (Oh my God, socialized medicine!)so that insurance companies and HMO's stay rich and powerful.