National Health Care Plan - 2009-08-24

Has it ever occurred to you as strange, that it was easier for the two George Bushes to convince Congress to send young Americans off to war, than it has been for President Clinton OR President Obama to get comprehensive Health Care bills passed?

These days Barack Obama may be wishing he was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom rather than President of the United States. Why? Because despite a majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress … the President can’t seem to get a major bill – like health care – passed.

In the U.K. and other Parliamentary democracies, all members of a political Party are essentially required to vote as the leader dictates. The American model of checks and balances doesn’t afford the President control over Congress...even with a majority. But I still prefer the American system because it does not concentrate power in one man...as Barack Obama is finding out I am neither for nor against a national health care program. I know there is no perfect solution, but I do not buy the argument that the richest country in the world cannot afford one. Almost every wealthy country in the world guarantees essential health care to all of its citizens. So it’s a bit odd to me, that it appears easier for Congress to allow administrations to spend hundreds of billions or more a year on ear marks, foreign aid, and Space Programs, (I won’t even mention the military budget)...but apparently to many in Congress, the United States cannot afford national health care for its citizens.

At the very least, the subject should be discussed and debated in a rational, honest manner, without blatant lies like the threat of "death panels". This is a very divisive subject so we would like to hear your opinions and experiences on this subject.