Every time the glaring flaws in the current system is pointed out, someone invariably says, "But it's still better than "socialized" medicine. Why change?". Never mind the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Say you don't like "socialized" medicine. Fine, but why would you put put with a system that puts people and their family at risk every time they change jobs or get laid off? Why put up with a system that, if you get too sick to work, you lose your work-based insurance just at a time you need it the most? Why put up with a system that is not easily portable but depends on your employment and your employer's prerogatives? A system that makes it harder for people to retire early, change career, go back to school for more education, become self-employed or start a small business, etc.? A system that creates unnecessary burden and stress on people, even those who are insured?

No matter what people think about "socialized" medicine, one thing is certain: The current system is illogical and inefficient, and needs to go.

I'm all-aboard with the above. Keep my employer out of this and out of my business.

I say keep the government out of this and out of my business!

AlaskaJennifer wrote: "I say keep the government out of this and out of my business!"

And you live in Alaska?! Boy that's a laugh. The rest of us are subsidizing you guys.

So I'm assuming you live in a state that hasn't taken any stimulus funds, is 100% economically stable and isn't looking for a government bailout, that isn't using the stimulus funds it took to keep afloat instead of using it for the programs the money was intended for, and don't work for or gain a benefit from any of the companies that received huge sums of bailout money? Our grandchildren are subsidizing the reckless and irresponsible behavior of this entire nation and the pot wants to call the kettle black?

AlaskaJennifer wrote: "Our grandchildren are subsidizing the reckless and irresponsible behavior of this entire nation and the pot wants to call the kettle black?"

Come on! Alaska has been getting more than its fair share for years, all the while pretending to be rugged individualists.

From 2004 to 2008, Taxpayers for Common Sense reports, Stevens had a hand in 891 Alaska-oriented earmarks worth $3.2 billion. That works out to about $4,800 per Alaskan, 18 times the national average. And earmarks represent just a fraction of federal spending in Alaska, which totaled $9 billion in 2006 alone.

According to the Tax Foundation, Alaska ranked first in federal spending per capita in 18 of the 25 years from 1981 through 2005. In 2005 Alaskans received $1.84 for every dollar they sent to Washington in taxes.

The Subsidy State

It's not the stimulus spending. It's the year in and year out subsidy those of us in the lower 48 send up there that's a laugh. Now go hunt a moose.

If Alaska was allowed to leave the US you'd better believe just the mineral and energy wealth would make up a thousand fold for the chump-change subsidy they get now. Every citizen in the state would be an instant milionaire. So who is rippping off who?

bsunissanalyst wrote: "If Alaska was allowed to leave the US you'd better believe just the mineral and energy wealth would make up a thousand fold for the chump-change subsidy they get now. Every citizen in the state would be an instant milionaire. So who is rippping off who? "

They already tax their minerals and oil, don't have an income tax, and still get huge subsidies from the lower 48. Why don't they just try to do without our subsidy for awhile?

The majority of people who use the term "socialized medicine" have either no grasp of what a national health system entails, or are deliberately obfuscating an important point: that health and healthcare are generally better in countries that have such systems.

It's ironic that the reason employers are in the business of healthcare provision stems from government regulation of businesses - there was a time when government capped wages, so employers started offering healthcare as a bonus. It stuck.

By all means stick to the current system. It's kinda like refusing to give up a horse or a bicycle, because you don't get your preferred color of seat in the car you're offered as an alternative.

Why do the states who vote Republican and whine about taxes receive the most Federal funds? I think the country would be better off if they refused federal money altogether. In fact, for the person who said that Alaska would be better off on its own, bye bye. The United States doesn't need you.

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

No reason you have to get your insurance through your employer. The reason you is is probably, a) he kicks in part of your premium b) through the insurance company, you get discounts which means cheaper premiums for you and your employer, and c) there's probably no pre existing conditions clause in your policy. But you could buy private insurance.

Having said that, cutting health insurance loose from employment doesn't require a government run insurance company. Private health care insurance companies will be happy to write a policy for you, but they cannot give you the break a, probably would do the b) break, and unless they can spread the risk of your preexisting condition over healthy people, won't go for c).

...but on your point (c.), this is precisely the issue that renders the current system so utterly absurd. If you are 45 and have hip disease, and know you need a hip replacement in the next 2-3 years, and you lose your job, what do you do?

An insurance company should be obliged by law to take on any customer, and set the premiums strictly on the basis of the state in which you live. If they don't like it, they don't have to do business here.

and therefore need to manage risk they are FORCED to exclude pre-existing conditions. What is to stop your hip replacement guy from never carrying insurance, finding out one day he needs a hip, and signing up for insurance the day after that? Think the insurance company will stay solvent with that policy?

If you want to force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, you must A) raise premiums on all policy holders, even the healthy and responsible who've been carrying insurance for years and haven't used it and B) force EVERYONE in the state to carry insurance. Would you force auto insurance companies to sell policies to people AFTER an accident and mandate they pay?