I've seen lots of comments as to the mental stability of those who oppose health-care reform, so I'd like to throw out someone who has studied the issue, and remains opposed .I'm not opposed to reforming the system in concept, but I haven't seen a suggestion that contains realistic or implementable programs. This is why:

America is too big. There are more than 300 million people in the United States.  If we do it on a state level, then we're leaving people at the mercy of the state governments, and you can ask Californians how well that's working for them. Or Floridians or Coloradans or any state that's caught in massive shortfalls when up against mandated budget locks. So it has to be national. But expanding any program to include everyone means an increase in bureaucracy that would have to at least eat up any real savings, if not more.

But the largeness of American causes other problems. Sarah Pain was over the edge with death panels but you do have to assume that there would have to be some rationing of services. I'm not as concerned with big ones as I am with the small ones. What are we going to cover and what are we not going to cover, and how are we going to decide? IVF? My sister-in-law just had a preventative double mastectomy (there is cancer in her family history, but not in her at the moment)--would we want her reconstructive surgery covered - do we all want to pay for that? What about therapy? What about Xanax or sleeping pills? If we're all paying for it, shouldn't we all have a say in how the money is spent? Do we want to have tax dollars spent on Terry Shavios when it could go to vaccinations? Are we going to start having referendums on what procedures are allowed? If we're saying healthcare is an inalienable right, then shouldn't everyone have access to the most advanced treatments possible, regardless of cost? My father had an experimental radiation treatment for his cancer - it didn't buy him a day, but it bought him hope. In a system supported by the government, shouldn't that be available to everyone? All government programs involve prioritizing. With a free market, there are choices between providers, between programs.

And along the lines of cost, how do we pay for it? We've heard the commentary about every industrialized nation having government healthcare, but we leave out that every other industrialized nation has a higher tax rate than we do. Maybe you think we pay too little in taxes, but if you do, you're in the minority. Even Canada has a tax rate about 6% higher and a 5% national sales tax (that's why the Blue Jays and Raptors have such ah hard time keeping players). Everyone pays more. But we don't hear that argument about healthcare in the US. We hear about the rich paying more. I find that idea distasteful - if this is a national priority, then it ought to be paid for by everyone. Make the tax hikes progressive if you want to, but make them universal. If we all benefit, we all pay.

And that is the heart of the problem. There may be 40 million people without insurance, but that means there are 270 million who have it. Everyone may bitch about their insurance, but they also bitch about their gas bill and the cost of bread. There is not a national mandate for this, beyond everyone wanting their own bills to be cheaper. And for every horror story out there, there are some good ones as well. Of course, I'm biased. I have twin boys who were born 10 weeks early. They were in the NICU for six weeks. The bill was $250,000. You know what I paid? $200. My wife gets a monthly shot of Lupron to help ease some of the pain of her endometriosis. The shot cost $500. It cost me 10 bucks. When my dad was dying insurance paid for in-home care, a private nurse, hell, even one of those chair-lift things so he could get to his own room. He got hurt in the Bahamas (where there is national health care) and the bill was $16,000.

Healthcare reform may be necessary. But until we're willing to ask all the questions about it - until we're willing to address all the concerns and all the consequences, forseen and otherwise, we need to hold off. Tweak what we have, but keep the fundamental system in place.