If the government can not teach children, what makes you think they can run health care?

But with that way of thinking then we shouldn't trust then government for absolutely anything. Why are we paying taxes then?

Denying medical attention to someone that doesn't have medical insurance because he/she can't afford it (low income or having a preexisting condition), just doesn't sound fair.

In Europe no one is denied medical attention (some of them can afford private medical insurance and some others just have the state insurance).The UK is going through a process of restructuring their health care system though.

I was under the impression that the government was in charge of protecting their citizens, but isn't medical attention included in that category?

Is the government or is THIS government? I think that's key question!

The premise of this question is in error. The government schools want a Godless society, a people who hold to an ethical standard rooted in self satisfaction, an economic philosophy rooted in socialist thought and a world where success and achievement take a back seat to how well one feels about their effort.

They want everyone to be sexually active and have "safe sex", they want the morals of the past to give way to debaucheries of if it feels ok for you then its ok. They want free speech to extend to everyone who holds their elitist view alone, anyone else is ridiculed as bigot, racist homophobic, out of touch or worse Christian.

How can you honestly say with these objectives in mind that the government schools have failed? The fact that Obama is even being considered a candidate is solid indication at how truly successful the system has been. So considering a health care proposition that takes money from those who have earned it and gives it to those who have not, while all the while rewarding their "behavior" is the logical extension of that thought process. Funny how people make choices for cell phones, cable TV, DVD players, brand new cars cigarettes beer and 7-10 trips to fast food heaven a week, yet haven't a dime to pay for health care? Come on, it is about choices pure and simple.

I have no problem with basic health services the key is to make all hospitals not for profit institutions. Reward people for "wellness visits", creat urgent care centers seperated from ER's and lock people up if they go to the ER for non emergency medical needs.

The governent does not deliver the Mail the US postal service does. It is not run by the government!

What does "run" mean? In theory a centrally controlled system could through economies of scale produce some good or service more efficiently than the private sector - but they accomplish that only by removing choice. And by removing competition, as well as accountability for the cost structure, they remove innovation.

You might get healthcare to everyone but it will be one size fits all, some of us will pay for everyone else's healthcare, and there'll be little or no innovation - - if they'd nationalized healthcare on a worldwide basis 200 years ago, everyone who is now an anesthesiologist would instead be a bloodletter.

Yeah, the government also fails miserably at keeping up our roads and delivering our mail. God, you cons are whiney.

Somehow I managed to learn enough at my public school to get a master's degree. Must've been a bunch of incompetent idiots teaching there. Public school teachers can't help that the kids of Republican parents don't value education and would rather worry about money and buying s.hit than read books.

I don't think government has any business running health care.

Obama cites Medicare "abuses" by private companies as an excuse to recentralize that. This ought to tell us how he thinks universal health-care should be operated--federal government-made decisions and no choices for us.

Blame the NEA for the poor implementation of "NCLB." If the NEA isn't for it, it cannot work. I say get rid of the NEA and education will improve overnight.

So you don't trust them with education or health care, but they should be in charge of the military and nuclear weapons? If people take things seriously they are run correctly. That's why we have to kick the repubs to the curb they have proven they can not run gov. They are only interested in lining their pockets and putting cronies in high level positions. It strikes me as odd that we would put people in charge of gov that want to prove that government does not work. What incentive is there for them to appoint people who would do a good job. If they put dumb asses in charge though then they can point at gov and say " look see I told you it does not work "

last time I checked... according to independent studies...

we rank higher internationally in education (around 20)... than we do in health care... (around 35)

so... while our education may not be great... it does appear that the government can run it better than private industry can run health care...

ALSO... to further prove the point... the best rated health care systems are socialized for the VAST majority...

My child's schools were fine until the Bush Admin. enacted 'no child left behind'.....suddenly all children were being left behind while classroom instruction was replaced with test preparation. Teachers became frustrated and quit. Now we have thousands of children left behind.....chalk another failure up to Bush.

I went to public school. It wasn't bad and it was free. Without public school I probably wouldn't be able to read and I'd be doing God knows what for a living. Instead I'm in law school. Coincidentally, I don't have health insurance.

the problem is simple.

we will continue to have pathetic teachers and pathetic schools until we elect a congress that will stand up to the teachers unions and tell them to take a hike.

If I live to see that day, I can die a happy man. but I don't expect that will be the case.