Every European country is bankrupt. Their systems are as unsustainable or more unsustainable than ours. This is true, plus they have 50% tax rates, 20% VAT, $8 gasoline, rationing of care, and no free market competition.

Sounds like paradise.

The good thing about America is, it's not bankrupt.  It can't be because I send in 15% self employment tax OFF THE TOP, then we'll talk about income taxes next April.  

What I loved about my father-in-law's bypass 4 years ago was when he signed a form that says he's responsible for all charges.  Can we see the prices?  No.  Any idea what is covered?  Not really.  Heart gets all fixed but so did his bank account & his credit because no HE is BANKRUPT.  Yes he had insurance.  But at least I know I'm free.

         JimQ is correct.  Any of the Democrat/"Progressive" currently proposed health care insurance schemes will drive us from where we are now--on the brink of bankruptcy--to total insolvency.  If one simply cannot afford a thing, all the supposedly wondrous features are irrelevant.  Perhaps the crisis of monetary collapse is their object; as in Rahm Emmanuel's dictum: "Never let a good crisis go to waste.".  They certainly seem to want confiscatory levels of taxation, premiums and penalties.  No matter what cost-figures that the CBO comes up with, those numbers will be fallacious and misleading because:  1) They are working from Democrat-supplied incomplete information which minimizes the projected costs and maximizes estimated revenues.  How can the CBO possibly come up with meaningful estimates when the Bill(s) are neither complete nor finalized?   2) The Democrats' projected "savings" from reducing "fraud and waste" in the current programs are "pie-in-the-sky" numbers.  If these huge "savings" were possible, why haven't they been implemented long before now?  Doesn't the fact that they have not been implemented mean that either:  (A)--They are impossible, or,  (B)--The legislators and bureaucrats who have failed to do so are either incompetent or corrupt and should be fired?    3)  How is driving doctors and other health-care providers out of business, and vastly increasing the workload of the remaining ones going to improve "availability" and "efficiency", and not result in drastic rationing of services?  Even if NO doctors were to "retire", the system would be overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of "new" patients and the avalanche of new government paperwork.  How is reducing the compensation to doctors and other providers going to encourage new students to enter the medical field (with a 6 to 10 year lag-time, as well, even if they could be so encouraged) to cope with all these folks?    4)  How, EXACTLY, is creating a vast new bureaucracy of government "offices"/agencies/committees and a plethora of new paperwork going to lower the cost of health care?      All of the current proposals defy all logic.    5) What will happen when the Great New System not only fails to solve or ameliorate the current and future problems, but instead exacerbates them?  Will "The Ministry Of Truth" even allow us to know?

         BTW, what is the government going to do with folks whose religions do not allow them to buy insurance (e.g., Muslims) or require them to eschew conventional modern medical treatments (e.g., Christian Scientists)?  I have nothing against such folk, but under the doctrine of "equal treatment under the law", how are such quandaries to be resolved, and by whom?

         Now, even if all of the above questions and problems were rationally answerable and solvable without the intervention of "deus ex machinae"  (we can't say "Miracles" anymore), IT DOES NOT MATTER.

         The reason that it does not matter is that the entire scheme is only peripherally concerned with health care and "insurance" and "reform".  The entire point of "single-payer" government-run health care/insurance scheme (which is what the current proposals must inevitably lead to, and is exactly what Pres. Obama has said, on videotape, that he is a "proponent" of) is GOVERNMENT-ENFORCED SOCIAL-ENGINEERING AND "PEOPLE-CONTROL".  No matter how many "Winston Smiths" the administration and Congress hire to "package" and "spin" this malevolent boondoggle in "Newspeak" terminology, the fact remains that this entire program will forcibly insert government into virtually every aspect of our lives.

           Do you smoke or drink?  Do you eat meat?  Is your diet too heavy in cholesterol and/or too light in fiber?  (WHO DECIDES?)  If so, you can either be denied coverage or exorbitantly surcharged at prohibitive rates.  How about if you own a racing car or motorcycle, an ATV or a motocross or street motorcycle, scuba gear or a boat?  What if you are a rock or mountain climber; a private pilot; a skydiver, a skier or snowboarder; an amateur boxer or martial-artist; an archer or a fencer; a fisherman; a BMX cyclist or a mountain biker?  (And, yes, some activities are surcharged by insurance companies now, but still at relatively-affordable rates.--I know, because I have personally paid several of these surcharges, at once, at various times in my life.  But the insurance companies do not have the force, nor have they the ability to so deeply intrude on our lives, as does government.)   "Double-plus-ungood", Winston would say. 

         Worst of all, what if you are a gun-owner?     And maybe even worse-than-worst-of-all, what will happen to your coverage and cost if you are the dreaded target or practical (combat-type) competition shooter, a concealed-carry handgun-permit holder or one of those truly "sick", degenerate individuals who takes obscene pleasure in the murderous, wanton slaughter of poor, innocent, defenseless, cute & cuddly ANIMALS!!!???   (I'd like to see a cuddly wild boar or brown bear "negotiate" with these animal-rights/government-type folks.)   ANIMALS!!!?????   The HORROR!!   You "SPECIE-IST" MURDERER!!!   If you should think this a ridiculous proposition, please be aware that an Agency of the Federal government, the CDC, has already, several times, "deemed" guns to be a major "health issue".

         In short, any activity, or ownership of any device, which Big Brother deems to be a "risk" (or otherwise "undesirable") WILL, sooner or later, have a serious and negative impact on your cost and/or continuation of coverage.  And, please note that, the Bill or Act doesn't have to specify any of this, because it will be up to the unaccountable-to-the-public bureaucratic regulators (and Mr. Obama's "Czars") to decide the details, as is always the case.  Do we want government to have this immense power?  Tell me: where in the Constitution is the Federal government granted this power?  And, if you choose to answer these questions, please do not attempt to stretch and twist "provide for the general welfare" like salt-water taffy, into some hideous form which the Founders never intended, and would have roundly condemned, had they possibly envisioned it. 

         I submit to you the opinion that no intellectually honest, rational person can have serious doubts as to the intent of the Founders in each and every clause of the Constitution and The Bill of Rights, if he/she has read  "The Federalist" (Papers, sic.),  "The Anti-Federalists"  and both volumes of the  "Debate on The Constitution" (ed. Bernard Bailyn,  Library Classics of The United States, Inc., New York, NY.  1993.  ISBN 0-940450-64-x).  You may disagree with their intent, but you will be unable to honestly entertain doubts about said intent.  While you're reading anyway, include  "Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation between Church and State" (Daniel L. Dreisbach.  New York University Press, New York, NY. 2002.  ISBN 0-8147-1935-X).

         Finally, even if you have perfect trust in the current Administration, Congress and the Federal bureaucracies,  can you honestly and rationally tell me that there will NEVER come a time, when some future government entity may decide to use the threat or act of the withholding of medical services or the assessment of impossible charges to discourage dissent of any of its policies nor to punish those who dissent?

         I would truly love to hear some honest, truthful, rational and convincing responses.

                                                                                      Yr. mst, hmbl. & obt. svt.,

                                                                                          the fenian

BTW, Tom--

         Just why is it that you still reside here?  It seems you have nothing but praise for the more-or-less socialist countries' systems and nothing but condemnations for ours.  One would think that, if you are as honorable a man as you are a vociferous one, and, as you are also one who is so clearly dissatisfied with, and critical of, our system, and, knowing that you are a part of that small but elite cadre whose understanding of these things is so much better and so much more deeply thought through than the rest of us (aka: "the very much larger majority") are capable of doing, and knowing also, that your elitist cadre is so much in the minority, and is employing such a myriad of obfuscations, misrepresentations, half-truths, lies, and damn lies to delude rather than to honestly persuade the rest of us to recognize the rightness of your position,  and, being so honorable, rather than encouraging your fellow elitists to just RAM THIS ABOMINATION DOWN OUR THROATS, destroying our actually quite well-functioning, if slightly imperfect system,  you would simply, quietly and honorably, remove yourself to one of the socialist paradises of which you seem to be so enamored.

         BTW, how's that for a real humdinger run-on sentence?   It's still a whole lot easier to follow and understand that any of the claptrap in those Bills in Congress.

         Best regards.