If government run health care is such a great idea, why is it?

Your observations are correct, and there isn't a good reason why anyone would answer differently. To those that did, I can only hope that someday there is a better understanding of our governments role in our lives. A great example of misunderstanding is: Justagrandma, while she defines Medicaid as being for poor people, I wonder how wealthy she thinks an average retired worker from the 70's or 80's is? My Mother in law was successful in business, retired in the 80's, her retirement fund is all but gone (at least half of "not much", due to the current financial crisis), adding that to around $800 a month Social Security makes her retirement a whopping $1000 a month to live on. She now has MS and Dementia, can't go to the bathroom by herself. My point? She is poor and Medicaid is the only place for her once we can not handle her situation any longer, and while this is my families issue, I am positive it's not that unusual! I am sure there are plenty of citizens in this situation or similar. Call her the poor, but she wasn't lazy just a victim. And although it's fun to say Medicaid is for the poor, the question should be: Who's poor.

Your question only amplifies some of the real issues for this country, of course health care is important, but how does it stand in comparison to survival? Our government is so involved in our lives, most reading this probably couldn't pick out one state that didn't go broke along with the Federal Government during this depression/recession.

Ultimately, the problem can be directly attributed to the voter. We vote and expect change but keep voting in the same ego driven, career minded wall flowers, who keep telling us what we need while spending our money to insure some other country doesn't fall victim to natural disasters, poor government (go figure!) and monetary and domestic product issues (go figure!), in the name of being a good neighbor.

People have been thinking about health care reform since Truman. How much more prior thought do you think they need? Another sixty years?

The government isn't a for-profit business. Any understanding at all about government programs would tell you that. The government needs to balance its budget, not make a profit.

Medicare is paid for throughout a persons lifelong working life, take a look on your paycheck, that deduction is there.

Medicaid is a program for the very poorest people. Here an income for a family of four is $10,200 is needed in order to qualify. That's around two hundred dollars a week. What kind of profit do you think one could wring out of people on that income?

Government run health insurance isn't the be-all end-all for those with funds and health to buy private insurance, but its the only game in town for the rest of the people, who may have had illnesses or just can't afford the $1360 a month for full coverage it costs here in NY.

If insurance companies want to lower the costs to the consumer, nothing is standing in their way. But they want to maintain their profit levels, which is fine, I just don't want to maintain them in the style to which they have become accustomed....also known as pig at the trough.

Well you're right but the intent is good. It doesn't matter what happens later. All that matters is getting it in the first place. Some one else will have to fix the problem and the people who set it up will be long gone by then like FDR. He gave us the failing Social Security program after all and he's not around to fix it now and both parties agree its a broken program. Good luck to you

Because a nationalised service is not designed to make a profit.. You think the fire service makes a profit? or the Police?

Your premise is nonsensical.. The benefits to society outweigh accounting profits and the subsidiary savings are huge. People unable to get health care have no opportunity to regain their health and return to productive work.. So you end up paying for them anyway... Desperate people turn to crime so that's more expense and danger for you!

The biggest benefit to the economy in regard to nationalised infrastructure is the opportunity for government to increase employment in those sectors in times of recession. Thus creating the opportunity to counter unemployment and use investment to improve infrastructure to create sustainable recovery. Rather than just pump taxpayers money into the hands of corporations to "stimulate them".

Infrastructure (Nationalised) - Stable secure nation, basic needs are met ensurance that necessary systems for transit, safety and healthcare and energy are provided in a manner that is stable and sustainable.

Enterprise: Retail, Manufacturing, Finance etc (Free market) - Diverse society with wide opportunity.

Is pure free market capitalism perfect? NO!

Is pure communist national ownership perfect? NO!

Do both sides of the coin have strengths and weaknesses? YES!!!

Hmm wonder how we can get around this paradox?..... Maybe if we use the strength of both systems to create a new integrated system... No that's crazy lets just argue with each other and go round in circles until we die!!!

Not to mention that all other countries with government run health care are also, and have been, running in the red for quite some time as well.

France, for example, has added on extra fees to their services as well as cut benefits particularly in recent years. Even with their private/public hybrid system they're running about 10% over every year and the private sector has been picking up more and more slack where the government side has been forced to turn people away.

Tell the "Governator" or Bob Dole that....

Schwarzenegger Latest Republican To Back Health Care Reform

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/06/republica...

Bob Dole: Health Care Will Pass, GOP Should Be Open To Reform

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/bob-dole-...

Maybe it is because the trust fund keeps getting raided and has been for several decades now. The last time was to fund tax cuts for the top at the expense of the rest. I'll bet you can guess who is responsible for this

B.S.

"Why isn't it, if not profitable, at least break even?"

Because the amount that is paid in (via taxes) is exceeded by the amount that is paid out to cover all the recipients. I'm sure you understand this. Raising taxes or cutting benefits is the only way to get out of the hole we're in. And this so-called health care reform will do both.

The problem with health care lies within the answer to the following question: Under a system in which there is health insurance, who has the incentive to keep health care costs to a minimum?

Everyone wants... no... feels 100% entitled... to health care but does not want to pay into it as much as they expect to get out of it.

yes, all the supporters can't hear the nations who can not get out of this quagmire. They do not see that every country who has tried this has failed and at the greatest expense. They make their pouty face and want what they want. There is no history of this working and yet my daughter will eventually be burdened and threatened by the fact that they couldn't be bothered by factual data.

Because it isn't a good idea. Those programs also directly cause the increase in the costs of health-care..

Government run health-care is a failure everywhere. Most countries are being bankrupted by it and trying to privatize parts of the system..