"Progressive News"...that explains a little too. If this is true then maybe more Americans will go overseas and our healthcare facilities won't be so over-crowded. s/off

And I wonder why this is considered a 'conservative' issue? Haven't there been vain attempts to revamp the US healthcare problems for years? even decades? *No one* wants to tackle the problems; just throw more $$$ at them and hope for the best. Our Congressmen would rather investigate the Pentagon, the President's advisers, what torture is, Rush Limbaugh, sports corruption, etc........

We have a multi-million dollar hospital which has just had more millions in renovations. State of the art equipment, tons of space a...

"Progressive News"...that explains a little too. If this is true then maybe more Americans will go overseas and our healthcare facilities won't be so over-crowded. s/off

And I wonder why this is considered a 'conservative' issue? Haven't there been vain attempts to revamp the US healthcare problems for years? even decades? *No one* wants to tackle the problems; just throw more $$$ at them and hope for the best. Our Congressmen would rather investigate the Pentagon, the President's advisers, what torture is, Rush Limbaugh, sports corruption, etc........

We have a multi-million dollar hospital which has just had more millions in renovations. State of the art equipment, tons of space and rooms in the ER; yet you will never go there when there are more than 3 doctors working, less than 20 patients waiting, and the waiting time never less than 3 hours. I've sat there many times with my father for over 6 hours, my husband 4 hrs. (kidney stones), my mother 3 with a stroke.

I live in a western European country. We pay higher taxes, yes indeed we do! ... BUT we ALL have healthcare. From cradle to grave, that is taken care of. You need, help? You'll get it. From the homeless to the rich. Here, we are EQUAL in that regard. It CAN be done, to provide universal healthcare to your citizens, without that meaning you all of a sudden are "communists" and without necessarily affecting your quality of life, to the negative.

We ALL get free education. If you mind your schooling, even a pauper, can become a doctor. The deciding factor is not money. In fact, they pay US to go to school. (Higher education is encouraged) We live longer. Our infant mortality rate is lower. We ...

I live in a western European country. We pay higher taxes, yes indeed we do! ... BUT we ALL have healthcare. From cradle to grave, that is taken care of. You need, help? You'll get it. From the homeless to the rich. Here, we are EQUAL in that regard. It CAN be done, to provide universal healthcare to your citizens, without that meaning you all of a sudden are "communists" and without necessarily affecting your quality of life, to the negative.

We ALL get free education. If you mind your schooling, even a pauper, can become a doctor. The deciding factor is not money. In fact, they pay US to go to school. (Higher education is encouraged) We live longer. Our infant mortality rate is lower. We are all-round healthier. I think we rate higher (or first?) on the happiness scale too. I do NOT understand the fear Americans seem to have of this way of doing things? Is it the high taxes? But we still have all we need! In fact, I think we have a better shot at the "American Dream", than Americans do!

I am NOT one of the "elite". I am single, I have a very large apartment, I travel a lot, 5 computers, 4 TVs, 5 cats, money in the bank, blah, blah, blah. I pay high taxes yes, but I have everything Americans do, and more!

Get yourselves together with all that healthcare shit. It makes America look bad, so many of your citizens are homeless, living in poverty and dying from lack of healthcare. It's just not...civilized.

Sorry for all these postings, but this is an important issue to me. People are dying needlessly...

Anyway, I just wanted to note, our system is not perfect, but that's what politics is for, to constantly fine-tune the system. At the moment, we have some waiting lists regarding certain cancer treatments (lack of specialists mostly), but until that issue is sorted out, the government has provided a "guarantee system" of treatment, so they will pay for you to get treatment at a private hospital, or overseas.

We're one of the richest countries in the world. So are you. We have a high standard of living and I just KNOW America can do better. It's your neighbours, your family that are dying. Wo...

Sorry for all these postings, but this is an important issue to me. People are dying needlessly...

Anyway, I just wanted to note, our system is not perfect, but that's what politics is for, to constantly fine-tune the system. At the moment, we have some waiting lists regarding certain cancer treatments (lack of specialists mostly), but until that issue is sorted out, the government has provided a "guarantee system" of treatment, so they will pay for you to get treatment at a private hospital, or overseas.

We're one of the richest countries in the world. So are you. We have a high standard of living and I just KNOW America can do better. It's your neighbours, your family that are dying. Wouldn't you happily put out a few more tax dollars (if needed) to take care of them? Isn't that what brotherly love is all about?

Wow, thanks masbury!

One last thing; We have a right-wing conservative government, by the way, and it has been for many years, (staunch BushCo allies, even) but even they see the obvious logic, economics and compassion of this "way" and would never dream of dismantling it. Those who want a more fancy-pants treatment, can still opt to go to private hospitals (at their own expense, of course, or through extra optional insurance,) if they feel the need to have tablecloths, fancy linen and private rooms, etc. Even the "snobs" are happy.

It's not about "Us vs. Them" or Left / Right ideologies, it's about making it work. The only thing that matters is, does one care enough ab...

Wow, thanks masbury!

One last thing; We have a right-wing conservative government, by the way, and it has been for many years, (staunch BushCo allies, even) but even they see the obvious logic, economics and compassion of this "way" and would never dream of dismantling it. Those who want a more fancy-pants treatment, can still opt to go to private hospitals (at their own expense, of course, or through extra optional insurance,) if they feel the need to have tablecloths, fancy linen and private rooms, etc. Even the "snobs" are happy.

It's not about "Us vs. Them" or Left / Right ideologies, it's about making it work. The only thing that matters is, does one care enough about ones neighbours to consider their needs too? Does one see the obvious economic advantage of spreading the burden? Here we do, and that has nothing to do with being "progressive", just compassionate and money-sassy and that goes for left AND right wingers.

The money the US spends on healthcare is way too much, compared to what they are getting back. If the whole system was overhauled, I'm pretty sure you could even save money! Prevention is the name of the game. People who are healthy, work. People who work, pay taxes. The healthier the people, (ALL the people) the more money to spend on ... well, you get the picture. If you add up all that Americans have to personally pay for; healthcare, school tuition, pension plans, etc, I still reckon the taxes we pay are way less. And then there's the peace of mind. Never having to worry. THAT is invaluable.

Masbury:

As Bush admitted regarding SCHIP (when he vetoed it): he had a
"philosophical" disagreement with government assistance with healthcare.

That is not true Mabury. Bush vetoed the Bill becuase of the incrementalist approach that was used to formulate the bill. SCHIP is a republican program. They are not trying to kill their own successful program. Bush vetoed Congress' Bill because it was a step toward destruction of the program. It opened the door for people that did not need it. It expanded "child" to include 24 year olds. It increased the income level of applicants well within the range of the middle class.

The philosophical difference is not about helping under-prive...

Masbury:

As Bush admitted regarding SCHIP (when he vetoed it): he had a
"philosophical" disagreement with government assistance with healthcare.

That is not true Mabury. Bush vetoed the Bill becuase of the incrementalist approach that was used to formulate the bill. SCHIP is a republican program. They are not trying to kill their own successful program. Bush vetoed Congress' Bill because it was a step toward destruction of the program. It opened the door for people that did not need it. It expanded "child" to include 24 year olds. It increased the income level of applicants well within the range of the middle class.

The philosophical difference is not about helping under-priveledged children, it is about maintaining the standard at which society should support those fully capable of supporting themselves. That is where the bill Bush vetoed crossed the line.

Bush's proposal for SCHIP actually provides much more money to those who need it. The Dem version would have opened the floodgates for millions of new enrollees and bankrupted the program, which is the incrementalist agenda of the Left.

Please be truthful.

"So that's why I vetoed the bill. I believe that private medicine is in the best interest of the country."

That is true. Most agree with that statement. In fact, it is an obvious fact.

What is not true is this comment by you:

As Bush admitted regarding SCHIP (when he vetoed it): he had

a "philosophical" disagreement with government assistance with healthcare.

and as I stated the philosophical difference in my previous comment was not regarding SCHIP, but the over reach that would destroy SCHIP. Did you read my comment? Did you know his proposal far surpassed what the democrats would have allowed for those in need or are you just so partisan an...

"So that's why I vetoed the bill. I believe that private medicine is in the best interest of the country."

That is true. Most agree with that statement. In fact, it is an obvious fact.

What is not true is this comment by you:

As Bush admitted regarding SCHIP (when he vetoed it): he had

a "philosophical" disagreement with government assistance with healthcare.

and as I stated the philosophical difference in my previous comment was not regarding SCHIP, but the over reach that would destroy SCHIP. Did you read my comment? Did you know his proposal far surpassed what the democrats would have allowed for those in need or are you just so partisan and hateful toward someone with an (R) after their name that you cannot see that his proposal does OBVIOUSLY MUCH more good than the Bill Congress passed.

It is a shame someone in your position would play politics with an issue like this. You know, there are issues where Republicans play these political games to score points and I think it is a shame and will say so. There are also times when Dems do the same thing. This bill was one of those times. So, instead of blaming Bush for putting politics before children you should direct your outrage at the Dems for their political theatre in this matter. People as rigid as you are the ones that keep preventing us from having solid, conscientious, effective, and fiscally responsible legislation from being passed.

Our country is being divided by politicians that use these tactics to point blame. You should stand up when your side is wrong. I will stand up when my side is wrong. Deal?