>No, that is not the same at all. Solidarity and common good are not in our constitution.

I also don't think health care should be a constitutional issue.

>I'm not willing to vote for a welfare state and that is what it is. Besides, it could very well end up like social security. I have been paying social security since I was 16. I may or may not see any payout from it during my lifetime.

If you're buying into the current rhetoric. Or because of most of the fund's worth being in federal bonds... which would be under suspicion because the issuer is deeply in red?

>Giving out more money for someone else to control is just plain stupid. I might as well just give it to someone on the street.

And with owned insurance you're giving it not just to a random person, and not even to officials controlled by an elected entity, you're giving them to a company whose primary goal is to keep as much of that money as possible as profit. Its success is not measured by efficiency of health care it brings, but by its profit margin. So instead of a publicly controlled body, you're giving your money to a body controlled by greed?

I've just checked a few websites where owned and non-profit providers are compared, and how their income is split between medical cost, administrative cost and profit is very indicative.

>There is no guarantee that the money will go for medical care. Whose to say that the whole system won't go bust in 10 years because the government put it all in the 'one fund' again and spent it on something entirely different?

It can happen anytime, just like your HMO can go the Enron way. And, I repeat, it doesn't have to be government at all, though that's the way it's done in most countries that have it.

>I will not voluntarily give more money in taxes until more accountability is involved in our tax dollars.

From what I've read here, it's cheaper per capita in Canada in New Zealand, and probably throughout the EU. My guess is, if American ingenuity and art of organization were put seriously to work, a system could be built which would be even more efficient then those. It's just that there's a lack of will.

> Congress can pretty much use your tax dollars for whatever it wants at this stage. They have to account for it but they don't have to ask for approval first.

And at election time they make sure these issues aren't on the agenda, so they aren't ever losing elections for financial reasons - it's always something else, like having substandard media experts to tell them how to look and what to say on TV. But that's another story.

>If it is required to give free medical care then why not free housing?

That already exists, in form of shelters and such. The point is that for other stuff you won't die or go bankrupt (aka "in debt forever" under new legislature) if something happens to you. One can always manage to sleep somewhere, eat something, even resort to begging, to find shelter and a meal. But when you are in a health emmergency, your life is at stake.

If you got no insurance, you won't go to a doctor until you must, and then it turns out you got something highly contagious. Had you gone after first symptoms, numerous others you may have contacted meanwhile wouldn't be at risk. Suppose half of them caught it - and if they too don't visit their doctor early, how many more may they infect?

I see here an interest of the society as a whole to stop the epidemics early, and lower the cost of health care by treating diseases in their early stages. Can't have that if people just stay away from the cost until it's much later.

> Who gets the better houses and who gets the section 8 housing? Do we all live in crackerbox houses so it is fair?

We had socialized housing, and while the intentions were probably good, it was done in such a way that it actually created more injustice than it solved. One category of citizens was entitled to housing by their companies (which were managed by workers anyway), and lots of apartments were built and given. While these apartments remained a property of the company, after five years the inhabitants would gain the staying rights. And you can guess they took very little care of those apartments, as they didn't really own them, but they couldn't be evicted either. There were also solidarity funds at enterprise level, from which you could loan the money to do your house repairs etc. Both ways were just causes for a lot of quarrel, because of all sorts of dirty tricks people used to get high on the list.

And then people like me, who always earned a few bits above the necessary level to engage in such lists, had to roll up our sleeves and build our houses with our own hands, from our own money. Now I can do masonry (brick and block, not wood), fit windows and doors, concrete, electricity and most of the plumbing; my wife is quite versatile with ceramic tiles and welding.

> What about food and water? Should we all pay $ in taxes towards food and then receive monthly food stamps to purchase our food with or maybe the government should hand out bread and cheese and milk, etc to every citizen at every corner?

I don't remember those times. That was in the forties, in the first few years of rebuilding the country after the war. It was quickly abandoned.

>Does the government decide what my diet should be now and provide the food for me? What about jobs? Should everyone get a job provided by the government then?

That's centralized, so-called state socialism. Which was proven to work, but very badly, with paradoxes on every corner. While some planning is probably necessary (someone has to do the stuff which takes 50 years to do), these guys in the Soviet bloc were planning every detail.

> What about transportation to/from work? Do we provide transportation too? Where does it stop?

On a bus stop :).
If a company subsidizes their workers' transportation cost, it should be treated as a cost of doing business (i.e. tax exempt), that's all. I know some factories which were just out of town had their busses, picking and dropping their workers, which was great for the night shift.

>Why should I even bother to work and succeed if the government provides it all for me? If you take my paycheck and share it with others than it becomes common funds. Socialism can morph into communism pretty easily.

Yes, the famous "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" mantra of communism, which then needs someone to assess both the abilities and needs. It may even work someday, a few generations in the future (and even then, in a completely different form), but for nowadays it's verrrry suspect.

>Once again, thank goodness the U.S. has not sunken that low yet. Everyday we lose more individual freedoms. This country was founded on the belief of 'individual freedom' and individual rights. I don't want the government deciding what medical care I should or can have or is necessary.

I didn't say that. I said "basic care should be available to everyone". You don't have to take it, and you can go to another doctor, be it a doctor within the system again, or a private one. But for the private one, your insurance will cover only the price of what the system has offered. Above that, pay extra (either extra doctor's bill or more insurance).

>So, if my neighbor gets sick and he cannot afford to pay for his medical care, instead of him paying it off a little bit at a time throughout his lifetime (which is available now without health insurance)

Which he would be doing anyway, if he ever worked, and would be doing again, when he got back to work.

>... I should pay for it?

Just your bit. Under the same rules as he did. And when the roles accidentally reverse, you'd still have your healthcare, just like he did.

>I don't think so. I will never agree to it. If the government wants to provide free medical care than they can pay for it out of the taxes we already pay and stop giving money to foreign governments and internal rebellions.

We've already discussed the mysterious ways of government spending. You have to have faith in them.