With the exception of a few jerks, I think most people want coverage and, at the very least, basic healthcare for all US citizens. However, the looming threat of government control is, indeed, scary. While the insurance industry does not at all operate under "market forces," it is still thought by many that change would seem to be more swift in the event of a disaster because money talks. There is always opportunity for new businesses to take the place of old, inefficient ones.

However, once the government takes something, that is it. End of the road. You are NEVER getting that back. To effect government change takes unbelievably long and requires a concerted effort of MILLIONS of Americans all with the same point of view on the matter. Just instituting the beginning of health care reform illustrates this fact - no one agrees, everyone argues, nothing gets done. No one can ever be truly represented because to represent "everyone," the concept must be butchered to the point that is unsatisfactory to everyone involved. In a free market, there are options, at least, that you can individually seek out if you don't like what everyone else is doing.

Think back to our history, how difficult it is to change our government. The civil rights movement... women's suffrage. These things required a passionate coalescence of purpose across the country. I think most Americans do not think we are capable of that anymore, and are afraid that if government health care does end up sucking, they will never really be able to change it back. We have operated under a polarized, two-party system for decades. Even when people don't like the two major candidates, they end up voting for them because the system is so stacked to begin with. Without a truly open candidate selection (which will never happen because that requires more money than most people can afford), the power to vote for change becomes very limited. This leaves activism, which Americans seem to have forgotten how to do.

That is why people want the market option to remain. Canada, where private insurance is banned - only single payor allowed - is the worst-case and most terrifying scenario for many Americans. Not only would the government be in charge, but they wouldn't even let you opt out if they do a bad job.

We must be very wary when we give more power to the government. Because you will never, ever get that power back again. Some see that as more of a threat to their livelihood than not having health insurance because it speaks to the principles on which our country was founded, which must be preserved above all else. Freedom trumps colonoscopies. "Give me liberty or give me death."

If the government wants to provide care to its citizens, it is going to have to find a way to do that without threatening the choices and freedoms of those who already have care, or those people are never going to get on board. I think the best option is serious reform of insurance practices.

As a current example of the fear people might have: The school district I work for must provide insurance to all employees as mandated by the state of Texas since it is a public institution. Standard operating procedure for such a situation. Problem is that you are not allowed to opt out of the insurance plan provided by the district even if you can show proof of insurance from somewhere else. I had never thought about the issue until one of my colleagues tried to opt out because the coverage provided by his wife's employer was better and came at a comparable price. He and his wife were effectively paying to have double coverage because the government wouldn't let them drop the lesser plan.

janneys2005,

You have said very well what I have been thinking. The irrevocable nature of Government programs is exactly why we need to go slowly and thoughtfully before creating a new one. This rush to have a bill out by the August recess is scary.

We've been slowly and thoughtfully considering more government-funded health care since the 1940s. Roosevelt proposed government health insurance along with social security. This was before employer-based coverage was common.

We considered more government health care again when we approved Medicare. Thank god we have it. With social security, It gave at least a little peace of mind to retirement.

Government health care was considered yet again in the 1960s, when Medicaid was added.

And universal health insurance has been a high-profile recurring issue at least since the 1990s. (So anyone with a genuine interest in the issue has had 15 years to study up.) We added the SCHIP children's health programs then.

Which of these programs -- medical care for the elderly, for the poor, or for the children -- would you like to make revocable? Maybe you'd like to revoke some benefits for veterans at the VA.

While we wait, many people are getting terrible health care due to no insurance, or due to insurance bureaucracy and declined coverage. Their lives are being wasted, their productivity wasted. Some people, including some who are quite young, will -- not may, will -- die for lack of proper medical care.

I'm more concerned with the irrevocable nature of death.