The government runs medicare now and can’t do that with medicare. Why does anyone think they’ll be successful just because they implement a larger plan under a different name?

Bottom line for me: Giving everyone health INSURANCE will make the problems WORSE–more expensive via taxes, less quality care and yes, wait times and someone else making my health care decisions.

I do not want it to be mandated that I must get an eye exam every year. That was done to further eye professionals–not help my health. I do not want to be told that I will buy health insurance and be told how much it will cost and how often I can get it. Yes, medicare does that today–and guess what? It’s expensive, it’s not paid for (we’re running a deficit here and other places) and the care can only be as good as the care in the US.

To improve care, you don’t force expensive insurance options. It’s a sad day when the government picks a large, expensive “solution” and forces it on everyone as though it solves anything at all. And it would appear that those doing it want to create bigger government, and a legacy–not good healthcare.

And where I stand means next to nothing in the scope of things. I have but one vote, every now and then. The truth is, our destiny lies in the hands of a few hundred suits in Washington and those that pay for their attention.

But as long as we’re at it, why should we stop here? If the gov’t is going to use my tax money to pay for others’ health insurance, then why not go the extra step to bring costs down even further? Ban cigarettes, close down McDonald’s, make 30 mins/day of exercise mandatory, etc. If you’re going to do it, then go ahead — do it all. If people can’t be responsible for their health, then just do it for them.

As far as the “Death Panels” thing, I have to take the source of the information and anyone who uses that term is clearly not trying to bring light onto the situation. They are trying to obfuscate the conversation. I totally get the argument that having government health insurance policies brings the government into our personal lives and that may not be something we want to do, but then you need to admit that the other outcome is getting rid of Medicare. The same people who are touting about “Death Panels” are suddenly the same people who are staunch defenders of Medicare. Additionally “death panel” is a totally sensationalistic term. Right now when I get sick, my insurance company looks for ways to get out of paying for my care (recission) and also decides whether it is cost effective to pursue the treatment I may want. That looks an awful lot like a “Death Panel” to me, so anyone who is touting them is simply being disingenuous.

If someone is using disinformation in their article I lose interest. As you point out in your own criticisms there are plenty of ways to make your point without trying to confuse or overstate things. I’d rather read articles by someone who is principled and can articulate the same point without resorting to histrionics.

Overall I see the situation as:

1.) The government gets out of the health care business altogether (which evidence seems to suggest will result in higher prices for similar outcomes, but may be a price we’re willing to pay to keep them out of our health decisions)

Or

2.) The government adopts a system to get our prices and outcomes in line with other countries. This will probably look very distasteful to those who want the government out of their lives.

I think it’s a complicated issue and I think phrases like “death panels” and other forms of misinformation don’t do ANY good in searching for a good outcome.

I do care about my freedoms being crumpled up and tossed in the wastebasket. I do care about being told that I WILL buy health insurance — that meets the government’s specifications, not my own — or I am subject to yet another tax (disguised as a ‘fine’), or I could end up in jail.

Our government has taken over the US auto industry, is on the path to taking over the housing industry with Fannie and Freddie, and now are working on taking over the health care industry. They’re up to nearly 50% of our economy.

What’s next?

“…if Barack Obama had been Bill Clinton he’d have woken up on Wednesday morning and begun triangulating. Instead, Obama woke up and figured that he needed more fierce urgency, and right now. The short-term hit in 2010 is worth it for the long-term benefits: Obscure congressmen will be just as happy as obscure ambassadors or obscure chairmen of obscure agencies. And the prize of permanent irreversible statist annexation merits the risk: Governmentalized “health care” puts us on the fast track to Euro-sclerosis and redefines the relationship between citizen and state in ways that make genuine conservative politics all but impossible.”