What if they want to work, but there are no jobs? I know a lot of people who have been laid off.

I want to help them, too.

There is no nobility in denying healthcare to anyone. If it became a right, or something every 'body' (and every soul) could cease worrying about because it was simply available when needed, with no moralizing, no regret It might be possible for employment to rise because the lack of troubling health problems would raise the population's ambition!

I got what Red was saying the first time.

I've made some difficult choices throughout my career: moving out of state for work, moving overseas for work, piggybacking on my husband's health plan, taking less money in a job that had better benefits, etc.

At LEAST one person in a family unit needs to look out for their loved ones to protect them in case of illness or injury.

Nobody wants to pay insurance premiums but it's part of life. Hold out for a job that has good benefits or move to get a job with good benefits.

Hopefully the new plan will help people who have no benefits now, for whatever reason.

I've never had a car accident, but I've paid insurance premiums for years. I don't like it, but that's what insurance is: shared risk. I pay, because there's a risk that I might have an accident and need coverage. Of course, the government mandates that I pay. If the government didn't, I might not.

Health insurance ultimately needs to be mandated, just like auto insurance. That's not in this current plan, but if we went to single payer, it would be mandated. Everybody would pay. Those who didn't need expensive care would still pay, because there is a risk that someday they would get sick and need coverage.

Single payer is what we should have. The current reform effort is a step in that direction.

Red - The arguments based on fairness and a sense of community have already been made, so I won't repeat them.

There's another aspect to the problem, though, that is equally important. The nations with a single payer system or other type of public option all provide health care to their citizens that is both more effective and very much cheaper. That's because these systems eliminate exorbitant profits by insurers, drug companies, and other entities that inflate health care costs.

You're concerned about paying for the health care given to indigent patients who can't pay for it themselves. You're already paying for it. Whether they pay or not, they get sick, and they get health care. If the hospitals and insurers can't get them to pay, they add the cost to your bills instead. The proposed legislation wouldn't change the fact that those payments are made, but it would reduce their dollar amount because the public option will keep a lid on costs.

The indigent uninsured do get health care, often top notch health care, not only in emergency rooms, but in hospital beds, and in the clinic setting, so it's inaccurate to claim that they don't get health care when they seek it. There are two serious problems, however, with this arrangement. Those without insurance or money often delay seeking care, in which case they may arrive at a medical setting in much worse shape than if they had sought care earlier. If they wait too long, they may end up dead. The second problem is that many low income families do in fact pay some of the costs, with devastating consequences to their standard of living. My point was that a reform package that ends up with our paying some money for the uninsured is not necessarily adding costs to those we already bear, but rather allocating them in a fairer and more humane manner. In fact, the competitive leverage available from a public option or single payer system actually lowers the cost on average for everyone, not merely the indigent.

Are you saying those without any form of ability to pay are given top notch healthcare?

Yes. I have participated in that type of caregiving and so I'm familiar with it in the ER, in-hospital, and clinic settings. You linked to a case of abuse requiring investigation. The fact that it triggered an investigation indicates that it is not an acceptable practice. It is primarily a problem for small, for-profit hospitals, but they are not the norm. In big city municipal hospitals, care, for the indigent and others, is often superior to care given to paying patients in some of these private hospitals. There are certainly inequities in the system, but overall, the problem for low income individuals is not poor care when they come to attention, but rather the fact that their economic circumstances discourage them from seeking care as soon as they need it.

You probably don't have to worry Red. The opponents of healthcare reform will convince most of the uneducated in America, that the cost of reform will be born by them, while not acknowledging that the escalating costs of the current 'system' will eventually bankrupt all of us anyway.