We already have universal healthcare, it is called medicade or medicare. It works so well, that it is now ready to take the elderly's life savings, as well as their homes because of the mismangement and incompetence of Government. The people surveyed are obviously misinformed about the true nature of these types of programs. If you have any doubt, go to a government nursing home or hospital is your area and talk to the patients.

I think it's time to stop believing that we can consider ourselves a 1st world country based only on our level of "power" in the world at large. We need to come to terms with the fact that other 1st world countries achieve that recognition based in large part on what their respective governments are doing for their citizenry. For those of the "Ask not what your country" crowd; READ THE ENTIRE SPEECH!!! Universal health care is a basic step towards giving America "back" to Americans. It's time to make the corporations let go of their stranglehold on OUR government, and by extension, OUR country.

I strongly support nationalized universal healthcare. We are the only developed nation without it. As such, though we spend twice what most other countries spend (15% of GDP vs. a more sane 6-9%), we still have health care statistics more indicative of developing nations.

Here are some links that may help make my point. As you read these, keep in mind that we're paying double for our health care. Britain, at about 6% is wondering if they can do more if they spend more. They're already way ahead of the U.S.

http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?id=1503
http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/paying_more_getting_less.pdf
http://www.mrdowling.com/800infantmortality.html
http://www.mrdowling.com/800life.html
http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/population-health/datatable-68.html
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/indwm/table3a.htm

I strongly support nationalized universal healthcare. We are the only developed nation without it. As such, though we spend twice what most other countries spend (15% of GDP vs. a more sane 6-9%), we still have health care statistics more indicative of developing nations.

It's funny, I was having a discussion with my brother the other day about the child tax credits. I sure do like them. That extra $3K we get back always helps. But it feels really irresponsible to me with the debt skyrocketing and the war and the deficit so high... we're taking a refundable tax credit that will be paid for by our grandchildren... and that precludes us from doing things like universal healthcare.

And he said, "but don't you want the money?"

And I said, "It's good for ME, but is it good for the country?"

My only answer is--and I'm glad to see I am in the majority--that it's not.

No. no, no, no, no.
Read the UK papers, talk to my Canadian relatives. Universal health care doesn't work! In both countries, the hospitals are understaffed, dirty and can't accommodate emergency cases. If you're diagnosed with cancer, be prepared to wait months until you receive treatment. Unless you're rich enough to visit a private clinic or receive treatment in the US.
Do you REALLY trust the government to run this properly?

Sabina, we can choose to use triage to take the most important cases first by some conscious logic. Or, we can choose to give good care to the wealthy and screw the poor. No country gives good care to all every time. We just give worse care than any developed democratic nation for more money than any other nation in the world, as a percent of GDP, not even as an absolute, as you might expect. Sorry. I can't agree with you on this. And, I have seen French health care and heard the same stories you have about Canadian care. Clearly, you have the money for the best care in this country and are ignoring those that don't.

And, yes, it will be painful getting there. But how long will we continue to ensure that millions in this country get emergency room only care and only at the worst hospitals?

Let's face it. Much of America is a third world country already. That is the plan of the ruling class. Bring in the Mexicans and others to keep the price of labor down. The ruling class has no intention of giving us health care and etc. 45 million(includes dependents) manual labor immigrants will destroy our social welfare system without higher taxes. Higher taxes are not part of their plan. The destruction of our social welfare system is. Our future is like Latin America when the North American integration plan comes into effect. The ruling class gets us sidetrack talking about sexual orientation.

Vote for Kucinich!

Not true. I lived in England and Austalia for several years. Id put their hospitals up against most in the US, and I know for a fact that your wrong about cancer. My relative had liver cancer. He received even experimental treatments, and they flew him from Melbourne to Sidney twice a month for it. No cost to him. In the US, my policy says 4 authorized treatments, then your considered a dead man and your on your own.
I think you are being very much mis-informed.

Also Sabina, you should do a little checkig.
WTO health care system rating.

Canada is rated 31
Australia is 32
England is 18

The US is 37.

SO how much worse could universal health care be if it ranks better than the what we have??

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Hey People,

I don't know ANYONE who supports Universal Health Care..!! Except maybe the Illlegals..!!! You wacked out libs need to stop lying to yourself and learn that we do NOT want what YOU want... Get a grip, or face being lost to the HEAP of history..!!

Bill

["Also Sabina, you should do a little checkig."]

So should you, livesipog.

"Universal healthcare" in SOME countries ranks higher than what we have, and NON-universal healthcare also ranks higher than what we have, in SOME Countries!

There a number of countries that your linked-to site rates far higher than Canada, UK or Australia (like among the top twenty, and even top ten) that do NOT have what we term "universal healthcare".
Some "universal healthcare" systems rank well, some do not.

When considering this issue, one should examine the probability of OUR government running a system as massive as healthcare and doing it well, in light of it's performance in a 30+ year long, hundreds of billions in cost War on Drugs, that Rolling Stone Magazine just reminded us that we've lost.
Every president since Nixon has termed that a TOP Priority!
What has our government achieved by pursuing this "Top Priority"?

There are other successful systems we could model on besides what we term "universal healthcare".
We SHOULD have the wisdom and intellectual honesty to examine them ALL. Not just the one that's the darling of the Socialists.

To imply that "universal healthcare" is "the only viable solution" would be pure Ostrich City.