To believe otherwise means you've been duped by the socialists in congress.

You either believe in the Constitution as the law of the land, and the document that constrains our federal government, or you don't.

If you believe it is, then this is clearly unconstitutional. If you don't, then you must accept ANY law that congress passes, and cant challenge such laws on constitutional grounds, since you won't fight for the whole constitution.

What I also am is an American citizen who believes that everyone - not just the wealthy, adequately employed or privileged - deserves good health care. Much of my family has TriCare - government insurance for military and dependents. It is an excellent program. They are fortunate.

My first option would not be government involvement, but years of abuse of the people by private insurance companies has shown this won't work.

If you really believe we don't need government intervention, then you have been duped by the powerful and big-money-backed insurance lobbyists. So sorry you and your cronies can't see that for yourselves.

Yet, congress won't touch it.

The founders intention when they wrote the commerce clause was to prohibit one state from taxing goods and services, as well as to stop states from prohibiting goods and services from being sold to other states.

Yet, the states won't allow cross state health insurance sales. Congress needs to (and Constitutionally can) step in and put an end to that practice.

lostmyshovel, No, I've never had insurance dropped, nor have I know of anyone to have their insurance dropped. However, right now I don't have insurance. When I got bills to pay for for pnemonia, I set up a payment plan with the hospital and pay it. It's $100/month, but the hospital and I agreed to it.

I'm not promoting scare tactics, I'm promoting the Constitution. If you want the government to provide health care, add an amendment to the Constitution. Then, I'll be all for it.

Allowing people to get health insurance across state lines and stopping frivilous law suits as rangerover mentioned would be a fine start. Many people I have spoken to seem to have a looter mentality about getting "free" healthcare. A lot of people have no idea how this would be paid for but as long as they're getting it for "free" they won't question it.

The thing she "lied" about was not listing a peanut allergy, and for that she was rejected coverage for MS and her kids who had nothing to do with anything were cut loose, too. The thought pattern has nothing to do with paranoia over what else they're hiding and everything to do with profit. The company was just looking for a reason to cut her and they found it. It happens to lots of people. Look it up (and I haven't watched MSNBC since election night). I looked up Blue Cross and you're right, they do accept all comers. I also saw this: They're the ONLY company in Michigan that does. You're making generalizations from anecdotal evidence again...

SO don't lecture me. You can read all the news you want. But anyone who wants health insurance in Michigan can get it thru Blue Cross. YOU look it up. It is absolutely true. Blue Cross is designated the "insurer of last resort' by the Michigan legislature. And not believing this goes both ways-----I am speaking facts but you will not believe it. And the only news brimming with these stories is on MSNBC.

Tell the people who lost family members to the peanut butter that it was only a small percentage of the entire production that was lost. I am sure that they will be comforted knowing that. The fact is this---we assume that our food is safe. In the case of the peanut butter it was NOT safe. The FDA and the USDA failed in that instance. People died. Whether self-regulation would have been better suited to prevent it is irrelevent----your argument seems to be that what the government runs is well-run. Mine is the opposite, and I do not want the feds involved in selling healthcare, requiring me to buy healthcare and fining me if I do not. It is a slippery slope.

I don't want to nitpick, but I will take one of your points; and so secondly: Just take a WILD guess as to how many tons of peanut butter are produced and injested daily in this country. What fraction of that vast amount is unsafe? Now how much of that would be unsafe if the industry was left to self-regulation with no oversight from the USDA and FDA?

I apologize for being insultive, but it really is apparent that your understanding of macroeconomics and public policy is informed soley by anecdote and Limbaugh.

"The WUPHAC provides medical service for people who have income but don’t make enough to pay for insurance."

These are OUR people, and we have to take care of them. Leaving them to fall victim to rising health costs, or to risk not being able to even get in line at a hospital because they cannot afford it, is unconscionable.

It's easy, RangeRover, to tally the costs of doing something. It's not so simply to know the cost of NOT doing something. So, yeah, maybe it cost be about $150 to fix my brakes - but did I lose that money? Or am I ultimately saving by not ramming by car into a tree?

We are for healthcare reform too. More than one way to do it. Stop the stupid lawsuits so Dr's don't have to pay over $100,000 /year for malpractice insurance. They just pass that on to us anyway. Let us buy across state lines. Have incentives for healthy lifestyles.