Here's a solution to that dilemma: let them have theirs and we'll have ours (I believe all of my pronouns are accounted for there).

I'm not surprised that people rate their government-run health care high–it's free or significantly subsidized. And it's true that they probably cover more than most private plans as well, but that costs money. As others have said, if everyone were on the government plan, the cost could no longer be shifted to others. It's not the quality I'm concerned about, it's the cost. And if the main cost-saving mechanism is rationing (something some freely admit), then that affects quality.

Stories of people having to go halfway across the state to see a certain specialist who accepts the Medicaid plan are not uncommon.

DLS said: “Reeve's appearance at a recent Democratic convention and the appeal to emotion (pro-Democrat and anti-Republican) that was part of this is obvious fact. (Go read about it if you need to learn more about it.)”

“What you just posted, [DLS], is illogical, though that is nothing new (ordinary, in fact) from your side… (note: it's three periods … not four ….”(Go read about it if you need to learn more.)”)
Christopher Reeve died on October 10, 2004. He DID NOT appeared at a RECENT Democratic Convention AND when he did speak at the at the 1996 Convention But he spoke out in support of Stem Cell Research… His speech had nothing to do with National Health Care.

Your attempt to make an enemy (Reeve in this case) out of any (and every) one who has an opinion that differs from yours has become merely something to expect.

You've evolved into “jwest, Jr” but what the hell that's OK by me. All the transparent talking points and lies coming from you 'nutters' on the right just helps us get truth out to main stream America… Your continual contributions are appreciated.

If there was something in the plan to actually substantively cut costs, then the whole thing might make sense. It's as simple as that, really. No one is scared to go on Medicare as it currently exists- what everyone fears is that we'll have to go on it or a similar program when there's no one left to pay the bills.

I love this quote, because this exact sentiment gets born out over and over again in every conversation I've had with people from countries with universal care. Even, for example, fairly young people who may not know about the system here in the US, and who initially say that their own health care system is crap because they had to wait a month to get their knee surgery or whatever — even they get wide eyed when they hear about how many people here won't even go to the doctor except in the case of a serious emergency because they can't afford the cost. Suddenly they don't think waiting a while for a non-urgent treatment is all that bad in comparison.

Reeve's appearance at a recent Democratic convention and the appeal to emotion (pro-Democrat and anti-Republican) that was part of this is obvious fact. (Go read about it if you need to learn more about it.)

* * *

“One of the arguments against government insurance is that people will be less satisfied. They won't get the care they need, they will have to wait in long lines, and they won't have a choice in their doctors. Polls showing greater satisfaction with government run plans over US private plans contradicts that argument.”

There remains concern, as always, with government _health_care_ (not insurance) and always will be, but more pertinent to the failing health care proposal by the Dems (perhaps being deliberately avoided or the object of an attempt at obscuration by Kathy, who seems actually to support this bad initiative, or any initiative at all, remarkably), is that there is obviously growing concern with the Dems' initiative, as an up-
to-date, real-world-and-issues-oriented poll here illustrates:

Obama Slipping in Poll

Approval Rating Hits 53% as Health Plan Loses Public Support

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124890178435291…

DLS claims: “Second, I'm not among the hard core of those who believe government health care will be magical, or who demonize the other players in the current public-private conglomeration.”

Hum?.. Your comment an hour ago:

“J. West — at least they don't have Christopher Reeve to exploit any longer.”

… seems to conflict with you claim here.
Either way is fine DLS (but I'm more familiar to your Christopher Reeve remark persona) but which of the two do you really want us to think of you as?

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1293/health-care-pu…

Second, I'm not among the hard core of those who believe government health care will be magical, or who demonize the other players in the current public-private conglomeration. (The more the agitators agitate for the current Dems' health care nonsense, the even more they discredit that initiative as well as themselves.) When (I often say this rather than “if” because I can see how things have developed over the past several years) we switch from a private to a public (government) health care system, we will be exchanging one set of problems for another. Certainly you can find plenty of supporters among the elderly who are beneficiaries of Medicare now, for they get health care rather than none at all and their “premiums” pay for about 25% of the costs of the program (they are very heavily subsidized). What will happen, on the other hand, when everyone is effectively on Medicare and costs from money-losing health care provision can no longer be shifted to the private sector as they are now, or Medicare patients refused?

One of the arguments against government insurance is that people will be less satisfied. They won't get the care they need, they will have to wait in long lines, and they won't have a choice in their doctors. Polls showing greater satisfaction with government run plans over US private plans contradicts that argument. It isn't propaganda. It is data gathered to test the specific assumption that government will produce a product that most people will hate.