There is a difference between health care and health cost.

Here in the USA, we don't have a health care problem, we have a health cost problem.

We have the best health care in the world. We have people from other countries that come to America for health care.

If you follow the money.. you will find out what the problem is... stop listening to individuals that are spewing out pig waste.

But, hey, I am looking forward to having my coverage provided to me from a board of individuals that don't know me but want to control my care.

To the democrats... up yours.

What have the Democrats managed to tuck into this 1,900 page healthcare bill?

Section 2531, entitled "Medical Liability Alternatives," establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]...... a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys' fees or imposes caps on damages.

Well that's rather obvious, isn't it? Just what in the*****does this have to do with health care reform? How does protecting trial lawyer's contingency fees improve the delivery and quality of health care to the American people? It is a gift from Nancy Pelosi directly to trial lawyers ... trial lawyers who contribute tens of millions of dollars to Democrats in every election year. Any changes made on medical liability lawsuits will not be allowed to affect the livelihood for her beloved trial lawyers.

1.Give individuals the right to deduct the cost of a health insurance policy from their taxable income. Your employer can do it, why not you?

2.Allow insurance companies to market their products across state lines.

3.Allow people to organize into groups for the purpose of buying health insurance policies.

The evil Republicans proposed all three of these ideas, and more. All were shot down by Democrats.

The goal here is control. Nothing more, nothing less. Control = power. Do the math.

Say, don't you get VA benefits?

Of course people don't want the government to run health care. I don't even particularly want the government to run health care, and I'm about as left as you can get. We're talking about insurance. Medicare, Medicaid - these are good programs. Let's improve and expand them. Let's put an end to private insurance. Do you know that we're subsidizing private insurance to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars? The government already spends 9.7% of GDP on health care (as opposed to 6.9% in Canada). We can bring that spending down and, at the same time, finance a system that covers all Americans.

Will taxes increase under such a system? Maybe. Compare the minimal increase in taxes to the money out of pocket many Americans pay for private health insurance that literally tries everyday to rip them off as much as possible. It's a steal.

Well, to begin with, we're not talking about government-run health care (as in the UK model). We're talking about a government takeover of the insurance industry. The doctors and hospitals would remain private.

Private insurers generate a lot of waste (which has nothing to do with health care) - overhead, billing, underwriting, marketing, not to mention executive salaries and bonuses. The savings on paperwork would amount to more than $350 billion per year. Under our current system, a lot of money is spent on people who avoid going to the doctor because they're either uninsured or underinsured; single-payer would encourage earlier treatment.

"most Americans want more government intervention in the health care system"

I couldn't disagree more.

I don't agree that we can't feasibly cover every American. Why do you think Democratic leaders won't put single-payer on the table? If the CBO analyzed single-payer, it would blow this "compromise" out of the water. Single-payer is the most efficient and cheapest solution to our health care woes. It is the fiscally conservative route. I understand why conservatives are opposed on a small-government, ideological level, but fiscally and statistically speaking, it's a no-brainer.

But unprincipled compromise is a fundamental part of this political system. So is corporate influence. That's why we're stuck with this monstrosity of a bill.

CNN says public option support is 53% favor-46% opposed, while general health care bill is 36% favor and 61% (!!) oppose.

What is the disconnect between the public option and the plans in Congress (pre-removal of public option)? Well it's simple. Everyone wants every American covered. But to implement that, you have to start either rationing care, cutting existing benefits to Medicare and the like, or balloon the deficit. There's no other explanation.

So while pie-in-the-sky "public option" support remains high, once you actually take that out of the mythical bubble of "good idea on paper" kind of state, the support plummets.

You found a poll that I didn't quote though. You quoted November, let's quote December.

Quinnipiac: 38% approve, 52% disapprove of the health care bills under consideration by Congress.

htt p://ww w.politico.c om/blogs/glennthrush/1209/Poll_Only_38_percent_support_health_care_bill.html

"OBAMA APPROVAL FALLS TO NEW LOW, QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY NATIONAL POLL FINDS; U.S. VOTERS OPPOSE HEALTH CARE PLAN BY WIDE MARGIN"

You are very good, however, to be able to spin a headline like that.