And bear in mind that the the earliest health care insurance for merchant marines that was originally signed into law was socialised medicine, so there is no honest argument that socialised health care was against the founding father's and The Constitution's intents:

"It was in the context of this reality that, in July of 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law an act "For the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen," establishing the Marine Hospital Service.

This Federal government socialized healthcare insurance was funded by a tax that was withheld from the sailor’s pay, and then turned over to the government by the ship’s owner. This first payroll tax amounted to slightly over 1% of the sailor’s wages. An injured or sick sailor would make a claim, his record of payments would be confirmed, and he would be given a "chit" for admission to the local hospital. Some of these healthcare facilities were private, but in the larger ports Federal maritime hospitals were established.

The history continues on from there, and I include links below for further study, but the relevant lesson has been learned. Yes, Americans, our Founders were very much for a socialized healthcare insurance system, and weren't against having government hospitals."

Link: http://open.salon.com/blog/paul_j_orourke/2009/07…

And then there is the fact that single payer is not socialized healthcare but a hybrid between a socialized "single payer" and the "free market" providers. It is a very moderate solution to the clash of left and right ideologies that streamlines the payer system and still leaves the free market the ability to innovate, if you misguidedly believe the free market innovates in healthcare? All this, even though it is too easily arguable that the free market is not equipped to deal properly with the ever changing needs of providing for healthcare needs, never mind the disaster the free market has clearly become in paying for it.

FYI: Sorry if this comment repeats, but the "intense debate" software you have seems to be messing up the posting.

And bear in mind that the the earliest health care insurance for merchant marines that was originally signed into law was socialised medicine, so there is no honest argument that socialised health care was against the founding father's and The Constitution's intents:

"It was in the context of this reality that, in July of 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law an act "For the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen," establishing the Marine Hospital Service.

This Federal government socialized healthcare insurance was funded by a tax that was withheld from the sailor’s pay, and then turned over to the government by the ship’s owner. This first payroll tax amounted to slightly over 1% of the sailor’s wages. An injured or sick sailor would make a claim, his record of payments would be confirmed, and he would be given a "chit" for admission to the local hospital. Some of these healthcare facilities were private, but in the larger ports Federal maritime hospitals were established.

The history continues on from there, and I include links below for further study, but the relevant lesson has been learned. Yes, Americans, our Founders were very much for a socialized healthcare insurance system, and weren't against having government hospitals."

Link: http://open.salon.com/blog/paul_j_orourke/2009/07…

And then there is the fact that single payer is not socialized healthcare but a hybrid between a socialized "single payer" and the "free market" providers. It is a very moderate solution to the clash of left and right ideologies that streamlines the payer system and still leaves the free market the ability to innovate, if you misguidedly believe the free market innovates in healthcare? All this, even though it is too easily arguable that the free market is not equipped to deal properly with the ever changing needs of providing for healthcare needs, never mind the disaster the free market has clearly become in paying for it.

Dear Sir…

I am just wondering if you might consider this proposition to resolve the issues with the Health Care bill. My proposal would force the Insurance Industry into reforming by introducing legislation that would, in effect, regulate every aspect of the insurance business. Here is how it would be structured…
•Rescind the anti-trust exemption to all of the insurance industry. This would remove the boundaries that insurance companies have now that gives that exclusive rights to everyone in their unique territory.
•Make it a federal felony to discriminate against anyone on the basis of pre-conditions, race, gender, or sexual orientation. We can do this through the 'hate crimes' bill as an amendment, or as part of the new legislative law specifically designed for the insurance industry.
•Grandfather the law to cover everyone that is currently without insurance, and offer a form of Medicare with a subsidized payment structure to cover the thirty-six million people unable to make the premium payments commensurate with income.
My thoughts are that would easily be able to pass this law without stipulations about whether the money paid out by users is going to be used for an abortion. It would also relieve the issue of whether it is going to cost the government money to put this program in place.

You thoughts, Sir…

Rod Davis

As far as universal healthcare, I look forward to removing the "middle man tax" on my healthcare expenses in the future. Outside than your unfounded fears, this is the best solution to high healthcare costs.