I meant the comment was obvious. I stated from the onset that hospital ERs will not refuse emergency service to people on the basis of inability to pay. Do you agree with that? That was what I was discussing and the point that was made. Sorry if that was unclear to you for some reason.

Yes Krimsa there is a trade off. I follow the rules of my daughter's program because I have to. I won't go into the reasons I have to except to say the program allows me to work and provide for my family while ensuring her immediate medical needs are met while I'm at work. If she was not enrolled in the program we would be surviving on food stamps and living in a HUD house. I choose to accept the help in order to still be a productive citizen and pay my way. I feel that's the only responsible thing to do.

Giving the gov't access to my own medical records is another matter entirely. I don't require assistance and I pay for my health insurance. I would like to keep my personal health matters between me and the doctor of my choosing. I'm sure you have read up on this, but I don't think some people realize how invasive that type of system will be. That's not to say it couldn't be a positive system, it's just my own opinion at this time, that health care reform shouldn't be rushed into an economic package, but rather given the much larger picture it deserves.

Totally agree with this. The idea that the government has access to all of our records is frightening to me. Too much opportunity for use and abuse. Perhaps if this country had started out on that system I might have more faith in it, but now, with our existing government, just doesn't set well with me. I know we definitely need to change our approach to healthcare in this country, but truly, I don't know what the answer would be and whatever it is certainly needs to be considered on it's merit not as part of an economic package.

Heather,

No I don’t know any more about it than you do, trust me. I have only the most general understanding of how universal healthcare operates and that is based solely on what Canada is doing. Like I mentioned, it is not unproblematic. Not by a long shot. It basically prohibits extra billing by doctors on patients while at the same time billing the public insurance system. It essentially allows for comprehensiveness, universality, portability, public administration and accessibility. You can also still have some private insurance access. The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system.

Where did the OP go anyhow??? He starts this up and then calmly walks away not even supervising the debate....
Maybe because we got just a little bit
Seriously, it's a great topic, and much enjoyed considering the great viewpoints by all, esp. after I got my blood pressure under control!!

Working in the health care field myself, I somewhat understand the dilemma between providing quality care as you are licensed by the state to do, and actually making money at it. It's a catch 22, which is why I end up giving part of my time away for free more times than not. It's the people I care more about.

It never got off topic that I saw anyway. Its all relative.

You hit the nail on the head with the statement "the first order of business"
Because thats what it is, a business.
Healthcare insurance is not about taking care of you, its about making money. Just like any other business.
I've heard people say that healthcare should be "free", well then how do we pay the healthcare provider??? How about free food and rent too?

I agree sir. Doctors and nurses dont work for free.