To expound...

Okay, let me clear up my ambiguity for all involved...

(Richter, if you are reading... this means you)

I do not feel that the Federal Government is required to provide health care to the citizens of these United States. Not because it couldn't be done, but because it would NOT be as good as the care we have available now. As flawed as our system is right now, we STILL have the best health care system in the world. Five minutes of research tells you there are other countries in the world that have lower infant mortality rates, or better over-all dental health, or fewer deaths per year due to heart disease... but those statistics are (I would be willing to bet) based on ACTUAL numbers of cases, as opposed to a "per capita" average. Comparing our health statistics with a place like Sweden, or Ireland, or even Canada on a ONE TO ONE basis is misleading. To use an example from past Obama and Richter debates... Sweden had 257 infant deaths in 2007, which was 2.8 deaths for every 1,000 live births. The US had 33,152 infant deaths (still shocking, huh?), which equates to 6.4 deaths for every 1000 live births.

However, the US has a birth rate of 14.8% of its population, which when compared to Sweden's 10.2%, shows that we can see that the US has a .007% GREATER over-all birth rate than Sweden (which, by the way, has the LOWEST infant mortality rate on earth). THAT tells me that nearly TWICE the percentage of US population is having children than Sweden. Less Swedish pregnancies... less infant deaths. (Facts HERE)

To respond to Ryan's call for clarity, if I haven't said it enough, I'll say it again:

ANY government-sponsored health care (OR health care coverage) does not guaranty BETTER service... in fact, I say it guarantees WORSE service. "Standardization" by its very definition reduces all factors to the lowest common denominator, each and every time. This is just as true in 5th grade math as it is in modern politics... if you doubt me, ask a veteran. Costs go UP and service quality and/or productivity go DOWN. This is undeniable and irrefutably true... I need cite no source here, as EVERY example in history proves my point.

To ensure adequate coverage for ALL citizens, the Feds would have to base their premiums on the most EXPENSIVE estimates available, and ALL tax-paying citizens would share this burden, while only 8% of those same tax-paying citizens would reap the benefits of the services (that being the fair and balanced percentage of taxpaying citizens without health coverage in this nation).

Of the estimated 40 million people in this country that are uninsured, only 7.1 million are considered "work-force eligible" meaning that they COULD hold a job that provided health benefits, but don't. The rest are elderly, young, or illegally residing in the US. I won't exclude the illegal population, because the health care providers CAN'T exclude them, which means in an Obama-sponsored health care world, I will be paying for their coverage. That's 12 million (some estimates are as high as 20 million!) non-citizens bringing the over-all cost of health care coverage UP by as much as 19%.

19%... that isn't a number, its simply an estimated statistic, right? Meaningless, in the modern American's eyes. So let's break it down to tangible numbers:

In 2007, the US economy spent $2.26 TRILLION dollars on health care costs. That is nearly $8k a year per household in this country (if every household was paying its share, that is). Reduce that number by 19%, and what do you see in savings to the average US family?

That's a savings of $1,413 a year. THIS is the manner that McCain/Palin has come up with a $1500 tax break that will offset the EXISTING problem of increased costs due to the 40 million uninsured in the country. GIVE THE MONEY BACK TO THE PEOPLE SPENDING IT.

Go to Obama's website, and who PAYS for the increase? The tax INCREASES go to anyone in this country making more than $75k a year... which means that 99% of those people are paying HIGHER taxes AND their own insurance premiums. Those earning LESS than $16k a year would have their insurance provided for them... but THOSE people do not pay taxes AT ALL, while already being eligible for Medicare and Medicaid! Thus, you are asking people to work HARDER to earn LESS.

That, my friends, is the single greatest failing of ANY socialist system or program. There is NO incentive to succeed. ALL incentive stays on the TAKE side of a GIVE and TAKE society.

I will CONTINUE to advocate the kind of "market-driven" system that existed in this country prior to 1970 and is coming back into vogue now. When I lived in Ocean Springs, I took ALL my business to a pair of Doctors that opened the Gulf Coast Family Medical Clinic (I hope they are still there). $40 for an appointment (period), samples and basic medication dispensed at the clinic at no cost, and referrals included in the appointment cost. THOSE guys did 3 times the volume of business, but didn't have to chase down 20% to 30% of their bills via collections or payment plans. They made a healthy profit (I assume) while providing good, functional service to the community. The same can be said of the doctors I now go to in NEPA. Give me the best price, and I'll give you the up-front service every time. Thus, I am paying $88 per dental cleaning and check-up, as opposed to the $240 it costs the average insurance company, and the $88 is right on par with what I'd be paying in co-pays anyway. The DDM is happy and paid, the kids have clean teeth, and I am not contributing to the "crisis" by helping inflate insurance amortization tables.

AND I have a perfectly FUNCTIONAL health insurance plan! I know not everyone does, but ADDING to the "red tape" by Federalizing or standardizing the coverage WON'T fix this problem... incentives and cost-reductions WILL.

CUT the doctor's/hospital's taxes, so they can reduce the COST of the serivice... INCREASE the taxes to doctors and hospitals and INCREASE the cost of coverage, and you will only RAISE the cost to the consumer.

This is elementary-level stuff here, people!