I have to agree with you most of the opposition is probably on the issue of profits.

Government is inefficient.  Government is broke.  Why someone would want them running healthcare is beyond me. 

Yeah, because the private companies are sooo effecient. Check the numbers.

I always wondered about that republican talking point: Why do those who claim that the government is inefficient always prove this statement to be true when they are the government.

Anyway, I didn't ask about that, I asked about the motives.

True Island but you got to also think about people who can't afford it also... but then again they are most likely be black and therefore who care about them. (this is meant to be a sarcastic comment)

hmm.... so Mooster, you think some motives are greed and racism?

I saw a show on Oprah.  It had health care experts from all over the word (and the guy that made "Sick'O).  They said things like "The police, fire department, sherif dept are all run by the goverenment.  Our current health care is "For Profit" and is now going through the same disasterous results as our as our banks and economey due to it's greed (drug companies most of all). 

Their main point is that as long as our health care system is a "for profit" system, it will slowly get worse and worse.  Another point they made was: Do you want goverment agencies that you rely on for your life to be "for profit"?  Do you want to call the police and have the look up your credit rating first?  If you call the fire dept, do you want them to check the value of your home before they'll respond?  Do you want to call the sherif about your stolen car, only to have them check the blue-book value if it's worth chasing the theif?  Well that's about how health-care works now in our country.  Need a Dr apt?; a special proceedure?; an operation?; then SHOW ME THE MONEY!  You don't have enough money you say?  Just lost your job and don't have insurance you say?  TFB!

And then there's the outragous price those of us who can pay, do pay, because so many other can't.  Just ask how much your asprin, saltine crackers, or even just a bottle of water costs you at the hospital; You'd get off cheeper buying stuff from Donlad Trumps garage sale.     

Jay Leno's mother had a heart attack while on a trip in England.  After months over there (they did not check for insurance or income sorce first, they just let her in), they relased her with a bill of about $1000.  That's all, and they even appologized to Mr. Leno for having to pay that much.  Over here, just one accident or sickness that puts you in the hopital (even is you HAVE insurance) can destroy you financially for life. . .

Not reforming Health Care in this country would be like not repairing a leaking damn.  It's just too bad the drug companies and health insurance lobbiests are scarring so many people with their "Soilent Green Death Camps are comming!" rumors.

Paladin, I think you're overreacting a bit there.

Greed and Racism for some sure....but not the majority of who are opposed.  They believe if the government runs healthcare, people lose even more freedom as stated in the constitution.  No, I don't support this idea of the government trying to take over our lives, but its what I've been hearing from my conservative friends.

@PurplePaladin: So you too think the cons' motives are greed. And about the reformers motives? I repeatedly heard Obama state that the cost of health care right now is too high ... and yet he suggests that his reform will both provide care for everyone and lower the costs for the government. That's quite a goal but probably achievable when they manage to cut unnecessary costs (like bartering for cheaper drugs). But what's the motive behind the pros? Altruism? Or simple pragmatism? Or because Obama is a communist nazi muslim terrorist from Kenya?

Healthcare may need reform, but the government shouldn't be the ones doing the reforming.

The governments SOLE job should be to maintain order, nothing more or less.

We as a country are too complacent. If we want to fix the healthcare, we should do it ourselves instead of crying to a government that has to much power already.

Scariest thing about Orwell's "1984" is NOT that it is so similar to our current situation. But that if I were to claim that it was, everone would leap on me crying "Conspiricy Theorist!" without checking the facts.

I'm curious, why is your first comment on your article an attempt to "disregard" something? It's my opinion that when people start ignoring other peoples opinions and belief just because it doesn't fit your perspective is when a debate becomes an argument, a pointless one at that accomplishes nothing.

From the Gov'ts point of view one could say it makes sense for them to want to pass this... if they don't they will not be able to excuse raising taxes on everyone basically making no "profit" what so ever. The idea that the Gov't can provide better care is kinda funny considering Medicare and Medicaid are not the most desired service neither in the US or the world.

Driving motives? Control. Obviously if the Gov't gets control of the Healthcare system, the insurers will lose the control they currently have. If the Gov't fails to gain control, not only will the insurers remain in control but probably gain more control, not to mention that failing to gain control, the Govt will rsit gaining control of any other concept they may have and possible even lose control of some they currently have. In the end it's all about control. It's kinda ironic to think that with all this tug of war over control of the Helathcare system in the US, nowhere do either the insurers or the Gov't have us average people as part of the groups pulling but instead we are the ones being pulled around. In the end we will never have control ourselves, isn't that sad?

I agree with Island Dog. I consider myself a moderate liberal, but with Medicade broke, Medicare broke, and Social Security broke I don't see how someone could think that the federal government could run a fiscally sound heath care plan. Also, the police and fire departments are ran by local governments, not the federal government. Comparing the two is rediculous.

I'm all for health care reform. It's bullshit that companies can decline your claims and drop you the way the can or the way someone who is already sick has about .0000000001% chance to get covered. However, having a federal government ran health care plan will not fix the problem.

So pro's to reform -Increases compitition between companies(allowing competition between states would do wonders)

More limited ways inwhich insurances companies can screw comsumers

Cons(If public health care is implemented) - Goverment intrusion into your health needs.

Simply put: Because it's stupid. Spinning euthanasia councelling into a death panel designed to kill grannys and unworthy life just seems too far fetched in these modern times, especially after WW2. But I admit that some might believe this nevertheless and are still intelectually capable of using the internet, so I'll remove that point from the OP.

Control for control's sake? Or do you mean control over the market via regulations for the sake of ... let's say stability or predictability?

And frankly I don't understand your last point. Don't you have a democracy where you directly vote for your representatives in the government? How can you say you-the-people don't have control? Or do you simply resent that you-the-other-people currently have control?

Arrodo, please add the granny thing back in. It's not only stupid, its an outright fabrication. Then we could also argue about the if the holocaust happened. 

Charles, why would the goverment want control? I thought the only goal of politicians apart from ideological ones was to be reelected, so they hopefully make sound decisions to sway the voters. I don't see more control helping them get reelected.

P.S. private overhead was 11-30 %, while medicare/mediaid whatver was 4%, that what I read in some stats anyway.