Democrats, vote Obama 2008!

No it wouldn't. A national health care system would not have to take control over anything. That is, by far, the BIGGEST misconception of national health care. Both Clinton's and Obama's plan makes use of expanded private and publically-subsidized insurance plans, but neither of them calls for nationalizing health care altogether. I had to create a health initiative for one of the research papers I had to write about it last semester. I ended up creating a single-payer plan, which goes much farther than either of their plans, and not even in my proposal is the providing system nationalized. Only the payment. Where do you keep hearing that hospitals would have to be nationalized, because you are woefully misinformed by them? Just because other countries have government hospitals and government doctor, doesn't mean we have to copy their systems exactly. Coming from public administration, that is one of the great things of sideways analysis of other policies. We look how it works there, pick the best parts of it, and then fit it to our society.

What exactly has Bush done for the military? He cut their benefits and funding for the VA, just when he was planning on putting increased strain on them. He ignored them when they told him that we would need 2-3x what he was calling for. He sent them in without the armor they knew they needed. Above all, he sent them into a war that we never should have been in. Please, do yourself a favor and watch this:
http://bravenewfilms.org...
It's the administration in their own words.

The surge has been pretty successful, but it is unsustainable. We don't have the equipment or manpower to keep them there. That's why Democrats don't look to the surge as being any kind of solution. Meanwhile, we can't be there forever. So what would you do?

No because MA doesn't control these hospitals. The hospitals are in now way government run. A national healthcare system will put the government in charge of the hospitals. It is like a Private school or a public school. Well then we will soon have no more options between a public or a private. I don't think Bush is always right. I do think there are some things the president has done that I don't agree with. Believe it or not I didn't vote for him , I used to be a Democrat. However I do think the left has gone to the extremes and I am not interested in going that way. I do believe in the war and I think Obama's plan to pull out when the surge is working would be stupid. Bush has done alot for the military, while the Dems just keep threatening to cut off funding. That angers me , because it is the troops that will suffer if funding is cut off.

No. I don't think that's nearly enough. I think they should take the money they pay blackwater and other mercenary companies and pay soldiers more. I don't think the Army should be paying bonuses of up to $50,000, only to have the family pay portions of it back if the soldier dies before finishing their first tour. They should get pay raises, they should get better care, and they have a lot better benefits than they currently get. I just don't understand how you can gloss over how Bush created all the problems you have with the military now. He cut the VA's budget when he got into office. Explain to me how it makes sense to cut their budget, and then go to war? Please explain it to me, because it makes no sense to me. What makes even less sense to me is why you don't blame Bush for his creation. I work in government. I see everyday the hard work put in by people who are dedicated to serving the public, but get crapped on and underfunded everyday. Government works very well when it has enough resources. How can you blame government itself when Bush cut the VA's budget, and then put incredible strain on it because of the war?

And how do you distinguish between Mass. gov't plan, while saying a national plan following the same blueprint would fail? What proof do you have of that? You have proof that a large government can run an effective health plan, yet you ignore it the example and instead believe something for which you have no proof whatsoever, but then considering your blind faith in Bush, that seems to be your MO.

You don't comprehend much do you. As I pointed out in my husband's civilian job he paid alot less than we do now. If my daughter got hospitalized on our civilian insurance we paid nothing , on Tricare we will pay the entire amount up to the cap. (I believe $1500 or it may be 2000) I would say I had it better when he was a civilian. He also took a huge paycut as a soldier. I will lose that military insurance when he comes home as he was fired from his civilian job for being deployed or at least laid off and black balled. So to say we get so much from his being in the military is not true. I don't know what kind of money you think soldiers make, but it isn't become a soldier , you will be taken care of and become rich. Also you could join just as easily as my husband did. For your information my husband is a specialist and makes $880 twice a month plus housing pay to be away from his wife and child and deployed to a war zone and miss all holidays , bdays , first things in his child's life, Christmas, her first day of school. He is in danger 24/7. Do you think thats alot of money to make for that? He was making $1200 a week plus $900-1500 a weekend on side jobs. I think we were a bit more well off when he was a civilian. State insurance isn't the same as a National Healthcare system. I said we need a reformed healthcare system but that free healthcare across the nation funded by the federal government is not the answer. ie Walter Reed Hospital. I would also point out that the payment we make to Tricare is not always $16 , that was for a minor visit. they pay a percentage of each visit and we pay the rest. So if we took our daughter to a specialist and they charged more than her doctor did that day we would pay a higher amount then $16. So your seeing a specialist for $9 more than my 4 year old having a 5 minute appointment with her primary care doctor to check her ears is not impressive to me.

"Do we need health care reform ... absolutely .. Free health care and handing over these hospitals to the government ... No way."

Umm, what do you think you got in Mass? What do you think your mom got? Here, let me remind you:
"I know people on Mass health (MA free insurance through the state ) and they pay nothing and can go to any of those hospitals I named. My mom was on that when I had my 3 hip surgeries when I was a kid. I have no limp and they are amazing for that".

It sucks when you contradict yourself within a matter of sentences.

You think $16 is a lot? You really have been riding high on the government's dollar. You should join the rest of us with HMOs or other sub-par insurance. You had to pay $16 for you daughter? I had to pay $25 just for a consultation with a specialist for headaches. And you make a lot more than I do. I'm just a student. This is just one of the many examples I could give you of how my, and everyone else's health care sucks. I had Blue Cross Blue Shield when my dad worked for the state, but we had to switch to my mom's HMO when he died. Health care through the government is almost always better than what most people can get on their own. You obviously have no idea how good you have it because of your husband's job, as well as what you had thanks to the Mass. state government. Once you get some perspective on how the rest of the country lives, perhaps you'll start understanding why the rest of us deserve what you get to enjoy everyday.

HA !!!You are so wrong. My husband had much better insurance before he joined the military so that was a real nice try. His civilian job we had Blue Cross , they covered everything and our co payments were $5 for a doctors visit and $50 for an ER visit. Now we have Tricare and I have Tricare standard where I pay a percentage of each visit , but I do it so I can take my daughter to some of the best hospitals. I now pay $16 just for an appointment to see why my daughter was pulling her ear. So that is not true that I am happy because I have military insurance. I know people on Mass health (MA free insurance through the state ) and they pay nothing and can go to any of those hospitals I named. My mom was on that when I had my 3 hip surgeries when I was a kid. I have no limp and they are amazing for that. My uncle's friend (his dad is police officer, a SGT at the time) had the same surgery at a not so great hospital and he has a limp. So your theory on the military insurance and people with great insurance blah blah blah is bull. Why should I give up my care and my family's care when my husband and I are willing to pay towards having great doctors. I will gladly pay co payments to assure we see top doctors in top hospitals. Do we need health care reform ... absolutely .. Free health care and handing over these hospitals to the government ... No way.

Those are great hospitals, if you have the money or expensive insurance to afford them. I've worked in a top 50 hospital in the country for the last 7 years, and I could tell you of a number of those very same scenarios you mentioned that I've seen myself. Bad stuff happens in all hospitals. The point is that even if you are lucky enough to get into a hospital where those things happen more rarely, you are most likely going to either be stabilized and kicked out, without being cured, or you will end up massively in debt. One sickness by anyone in your family and thats it. You'll be in a hole you'll never get out of without bankruptcy. You live in a totally different world than the rest of us because your husband is essentially a federal employee and has the health insurance of such an employee. Let me guess, your answer now is for everyone to join the military?

Children's Hospital , Mass general , Brigham and Women's , Mayo Clinic, John Hopkins, etc ... Some of the best hospitals , you will not find hospitals equal to the hospitals in the US in other countries. I have been to hospitals in Scotland that were so dirty I couldn't change my baby. I was treated in Ireland and ended up more sick when I got home and had to be hospitalized. People come from all over the world to be treated at multiple Children's Hospitals in the US.

As for Obama, your stance that he would run the country into the ground is equally unfounded considering his economics are largely based off of a proven model for growth and sustainability. Bush has run our country into the ground, and you want more of it. You'd have to be pretty delusional or ignorant, or both, to think that Obama would do anything but make this country better. It couldn't get much worse. Again, you believe things based solely off of faith and bare no resemblance to reality. You have a strong desire to not give Democrats any credit for any of the progress they made during the 90s, while conveniently ignoring the disgusting failures of the last 7 years, and that borders on mental illness.

I would really like for you to show me where he said he would send them to Africa. And please don't send me a source that is from some extreme far right source that, as you proved to me the last time you cited links, make stuff up and twist primary sources to meet their preconceived notions of what they want.

Clinton cut the military's budget because we were coming out of the Cold War and didn't need such a huge military industrial complex. It was called the "peace dividend" and was justly need to balance the budget and invest in the country. It was one of the many reasons why our economy was so good in the 90s. He actually got pay and benefit increases for servicemen, but I won't try to convince you of the BS you've brainwashed yourself with. Your brand of revisionist history is sad and hypocritical when it comes to many other items of the conservative agenda.

The VA has always been a model for keeping costs low while providing good care. Only once Bush got into power did their budgets get cut, just when they were needed more than ever. Go back over old newspaper articles through Proquest or some other academic news archive. Read it for yourself. Stop relying on people who make up whatever they want, just so long as it gets people like you pissed enough. Bush did cut their benefits. He did create a system where their bonuses must be repaid by service members' families if they die too soon. He did create a system where wounded soldiers in Walter Reed had to pay for their own meals while they were there. Those are the kinds of measures an agency has to take when their budgets have been starved when demand on them goes up.

We are 37th in the world for health system performance, so I don't know what countries you've been to. I could go to Costa Rica and find a better health system based on responsiveness, outcomes, and availability. I don't know if you're pulling your facts out of your rear or what, but they have no basis in reality.