As a Canadian living in the States, I am absolutely baffled by the controversy over this healthcare reform that exists in this country.

The obvious fact is that much of this is troll-baiting by the media: 'left' and 'right' media sources alike are rolling on the wave of disagreement as coverage of this 'hot' issue guarantees ratings, thus bringing in ad revenue, while simultaneously allowing them to downplay any truly meaningful stories from around the globe, and perpetuating their own dominance over public opinion. Just think about how much any US-based news-source plays up the opposition between supposed democratic and conservative 'values', polarizing the public and minimizing the diversity of socio-political opinion.

And though it's a separate point, tangential at best to the healthcare issue, it needs to be driven home - given the typically formulaic approach to the 'discussion' of two-party state politics, the capacity of an issue to break down along the lines of simple opposition can be linked directly to how much coverage it gets in mainstream media.

On to the subject at hand - healthcare reform - there really are two basic issues, which are intrinsically at odds with each other. The first can be broadly described as 'coverage' and the second as 'affordability'. Seemingly EVERYONE who speaks up is either optimistic or worried about both human lives and money. And this is where my train of thought crashes. How can anyone sane claim to care about both to the same extent?

Raising the quality of life in the country, which is essentially what extending healthcare coverage will do, can only be done at cost (but will pay for itself in the long run, as more people are able to access medical services).

On the other hand, bashing the idea of a 'public option' as ideological socialism because it relies on taxation and the redistribution of budget (in other words for 'taking' money instead of 'making' it) is a form of narrow-minded support for an abstract notion of profit, which is tied to the well-being of private enterprises (such as insurance companies, which are at best bureaucratic entities that exist with virtual independence of the people employed by them).

So, you either prefer to support the idea that people deserve to receive medical attention (the cost of such services being a secondary concern), or you prefer to support the idea that medical attention is a service to be capitalized upon (that its a potential source of revenue).

SIMPLY PUT: extending healthcare coverage aims to provide for the well-being of all the country's citizens; balancing the budget by relying on private enterprises to cover healthcare aims to provide for the well-being of said enterprises (read: a very small percentage of the country's citizens).

Since this is already too long to read for the select group of readers that will surely attack this uninvolved bystander's opinion, the conclusion will have to be hasty: it is inane to assume that a non-profit-motivated entity such as the government will withhold medical services from those that need it for budgeting reasons, while believing that profit-motivated companies will assure coverage for the reasons of 'good business' and 'competition'.

JUST WHAT IS SO WRONG about letting the government take the $500 billion over 10 years from one medicare provider and reallocate it to another one? All it means is that more medicare providers will have better equipment, better ability to provide said medicare (this is built on an assumption that the money will be taken from the budgets of well-established service points and moved toward establishing new ones and/or bettering the less-established ones).

And can anyone explain to me why this 'discussion' is so freaking clouded with jargon? What is a Medicare provider? is it a hospital? is it a doctor? is it both? and if so isn't it just a bit silly to lump an individual in the same category as an institution?

p.s. if I get seriously sick, I'm getting my *** across the border to Canada, where I, along with millions other citizens, have paid a relatively small tax to get a plastic card in my wallet that assures I will get treatment, no matter what the nature and severity of my illness. Did I mention that Canadian government-run health insurance actually is NOT mutually exclusive with employer-based private health benefits? In fact everybody has health coverage from their province (Canadian equivalent of a state), and most people have employer-provided benefits IN ADDITION to that. But what do we know, we're crazy socialists, though I'm sure the Europeans are even crazier and even more socialistic

Quit whining, geezuz. I support him and believe me I am not in denial. He is slowly keeping his promises and it's going to take more what little time he has been in already. But feel free to try to convince us that he's a joke. Good luck with that.

That still doesn't mean you can't go and get coverage from the government. That's why their calling it the 'public option', isn't it? And if that is true, then can you please explain to me EXACTLY why you would prefer to be covered by an employer who would rather pay a penalty than provide for your health as opposed to the government, which is trying to provide for the health of as many citizens as it can get away with?

Well said! Finally someone who makes sense!

This migh surprise some, but to get my dentist work done and medical checkup, I have to travel back to Europe, to the country of my origin because it's a fraction of a cost what I would pay in the USA and I still get health care benefits, due to being an EU citizen as well as US citizen.
I understand that the US healthcare system could function without having government health care available as well, it function as such back 20-30yrs ago well. Unfortunately people still haven't realized, that how the so called competition was destroyed already a while ago and certain health care providers are monopolizing and raising the prices to sky high and same with the medicine.
It's really the same thing with cable TV , to put it in perspective, people bicker about cable tv being expensive, they just can't comprehend the fact, that certain companies can grow quite big that will destroy the competition to a level, where there is no fair play anymore and monopolies take over and gain too much power to the point, when even the political decisions made in the government do not reflect what is necessarily for the people, but what is necessarily to have these giant companies to make profit at whatever price. Their propaganda is very strong and billions of dollars plunged into it to put a gridlock over the opinions and the people continue to bicker about the prices and never wake up to the fact, that they are being spoonfed by propaganda.

Many need to understand that the government must step in at certain points to level the field a bit, otherwise not only the quality falters and the price goes to sky high, but the quality of life suffers and eventually the entire country will be controlled by special interest, which could not care less about what is going on as long as they are making a profit.

Isn't that Congress's job? To legislate and regulate. Congress can't do that without creating a bureaucratic entity to compete with private industry? Let's get Congress to open a grocery store or two. Food cost way too much. Not the direction I want to see for this country.

Take the time to research and re-read all of Obama words he spouted in different speeches throughout the country while he campaigned - and if you honestly do you will find his many misrepresentations which I say are lies.
"Still in Denial"

"And what I've said is, I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies — they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process."

That's a complete opposite of what he did - invited health care lobbyist to the white house to have secret meeting behind closed doors and then wouldn't even release the visitors list until he was backed in a corner to do so....please.

I guess then you will always have questions because I don't know what more he can say to people. How frustrating. oh well.

Employers aren't actually the ones providing the coverage / its the insurance companies isn't it? The policy cost to the employer for the insurance is way more than the penalty. So you tell me what an employer would rather do? Exactly, pay the lessor cost.

I was born in canada---Your going to love waiting in those loooong lines. And that is for an in-grown toe- nail---gota love this bunch in DC