Doctors…yes. Insurance companies have NOTHING, repeat, NOTHING, to do with health care. Period. Does your insurance company operate on you? No. Give you medicine? No. All insurance companies do is shuffle papers and try not to pay for stuff. They are a money machine, in a way, they take money and try not to have to pay any back, excluding whomever they want to for almost any reason.

Those capitalists who would excuse this baloney for the sake of non-essential layers of paper shuffling and CEO salaries while health care costs spiral and millions are threatened with bankruptcy if they get sick are the same capitalists who justify making profits from war.

Those capitalists evidently can't comprehend the evil being done.

Profits are not evil. People who profit from the suffering and dying of Americans. That's what is evil.

And what are these 'billions in profits made from americans suffering' ? You don't think doctors and insurance companies are entitled to compensation for the services they provide, like everyone else is ? Who are you to tell them such a thing ? It's supposed to be a free society. You don't get to take away the rights of doctors to get what they are worth in the marketplace. And btw, the service they provide is SAVING YOUR LIFE. How much would you be willing to pay to have someone save your life ??? Twenty bucks ? A hundred bucks ? A thousand ? A million ? Is there any price too steep ?

In addition, the whole idea of taking the profit out of health care is destined to fail. Whether you like it or not, the profit motive is a powerful force for innovation, and it also attracts the best and brightest minds. Then, add in the fact that the government never runs anything cheaply or efficiently, and the private sector looks superior once again. Government run health care systems the world over have extensive waiting lists and care that is rationed out, and it's all because they have 'taken the profit out' of it, taken the competitive private sector out of it, and handed it all over to government bureaucrats.

And as for you not being able to see that liberals want to hand everything over to government, all I can say is, what country do you live in ? It can't be this one. Open your eyes. They've been doing it for decades. Kruschev even told us back in the 50's that communism would be spoon fed to us little by little until one day we woke up and we were communists. Liberals have been carrying out Kruschev's plan ever since. Now, even Republicans are doing it. Someone has to step up and reverse this trend before it's too late and every one of us lives in poverty. And one of the first stupid counterproductive communist ideas that should be stamped out is the one that says 'profit is evil'. Bullsh*t. The profit motive and the free market created the superpower known as the United States. Whining leftist know-nothings would destroy it all. In case you don't know, and history hasn't taught you a thing, when that marxist paradise is reached, everybody is poor and enslaved.

You mention "massive redistribution of wealth"……if you are not FOR redistribution of the billions of profits, made from the fact that humans are suffering, into a larger pool of Americans enabling all to be covered…….then you must be FOR the status quo of billions of profits continuing from the suffering of Americans.

That is where capitalism goes too far. It is not necessary for conservatives to fight a fight defending 'for profit' health insurers. Smart conservatives, and I know that's mostly oxymoronic, would be better served by putting a bit of that invisible, up til now, "compassion", back in the slogan "compassionate conservative".

But RR:, you go ahead and say this….

"She is just using that ruse as an excuse to expand government power (the goal of ALL leftist policy)."

So, here I am, The Reverend, defender of all liberal things, nay, cheerleader for all liberal things, and yet I've never held, or read any significant liberals, who want to expand government power simply because expanding government power is policy. I think that is a straw man argument.

Rev: Yes there WAS something about slavery in the Constitution. Several things actually. You never heard of the Bill Of Rights ? The same concepts cover women's right to vote. Ending slavery and giving women the right to vote fulfilled the mandates of freedom and civil rights outlined in the Constitution.

But Jimmy is right about Medicare NOT being in the Constitution. It isn't, and the 'general welfare of the people' IS in there, as you pointed out. However, I think you both are a bit confused by my argument. What I objected to was Hillary saying health insurance is a 'RIGHT'. Health insurance isn't a right. Hillary is wrong. She is just using that ruse as an excuse to expand government power (the goal of ALL leftist policy). But even though health insurance isn't a right, that doesn't mean as a society we can't promote the idea of affordable health care for everyone. There's nothing UNCONSTITUTIONAL about the concept. The danger is in automatically handing every problem over to the government to solve, resulting in a massive redistribution of wealth, the consolidation of power unto the government, and leading inevitably to a totalitarian communist/socialist state, with the citizenry begging for the scraps from the all-powerful government table. THAT is definitely against the intent and design of the constitutional wishes of our founding fathers. The founding fathers also were wise enough to realize our form of government could end when the people rushed to vote government favors into their own pockets. A free market solution is thus always infinitely preferable.

Jimmy is right, Medicare is not in the Constitution but I'm relatively sure you want it to stay around, I know I do.

Your argument about leftists wanting to force others to pay for stuff is a bit misguided, IMHO. My point was that Hillary's plan simply wants to have it both ways. Insurance companies are a big part of the health care problem. They need eliminated from the formula.

And of course, there's always that part in the Constitution about the general welfare of the people. Can't deny it's in there.

You are correct about Plan D not being mandatory. The Clinton health plan would be different in that regard. You're right. And I also have relatives who benefit from Plan D….however, one of them has been in the donut hole for a little while know and she's cursing the sleight of hand. And then we also have the 'no negotiation for lower drug costs' part….which is, like forcing people to buy insurance, totally needless.

American government tries to have cake and eat it too. Reward big corporations and help people at the same time. All it does is mess stuff up even worse. But that's what unbridled capitalism and lack of publicly funded political campaigns gets us.

In what f'd up bizarro republican world do you live in where everyone in this country has access to health care?

And Rev, your comparison between Hillary's plan to take away our rights and Medicare Part D is a farce. First off, Part D is VOLUNTARY. Nobody is forced to join. Secondly, Part D costs around $40 per month. If someone is taking many medications (like my mother), they save a bundle. My mother currently pays $55 per month for medications that would cost over $600 per month retail. She pays far less through Part D than she would say, importing from Canada or another country. I researched it extensively, and Part D was the absolute best plan available anywhere for her.

Hillary is also being deceptive when she says her program is not government run. While technically true (there would still be insurance companies), her plan would require a great deal of additional taxes and require much more government involvement than we have now. Hillary and Edwards should just call their health care proposals the 'Freedom Schmeedom, You Will Submit' plans.