I believe, then, it falls under the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That being said, I share the same reservations about our government, the government of Katrina, Fema, Waco, etc., being in charge of my health care. However, if I had some assurance that our gov't would behave better than the current HMOs in terms of speed, approval, and flexibility of care, then I admit it does appeal. I think I'd want to see a government INSURANCE program, rather than handing the whole system over to them lock, stock and barrel. Sort of like providing the required minimum (like they do for Medicare), only they're simply going to HAVE to cut back on the paperwork, because it's driving doctors out of business.

As far as the obesity thing goes, I'm torn on that. On one hand I'm outraged, but then I acknowledge that they do charge smokers more. But like LSPE points out, it's not entirely behavioral, and the ability to control the behavior is also affected by genetics, so it's sort of like charging the cancer-prone more. Also, smokers do have a choice of whether to smoke or not. Alcoholics have a choice of whether to drink or not. But say you told an alcoholic that they had to drink exactly half a shot every single day of their life in order to live - would you REALLY be surprised if they couldn't stick to that?

I'm frankly sick of the "moral outrage" that people not afflicted with obesity-relate problems feel they have a right to.

As I've said, socialized healthcare doesn't make money a non-issue, it just changes who gets to make the decision as to when money becomes an issue.

I personally don't think healthcare is a fundamental human right (but then, I don't think there is any such thing) but it is certainly something we as a society can decide to do.

Therein lies the problem. One of my biggest fears of nationalized healthcare is allowing the government to decide for me.

On the other hand, if the government also insured the doctors, they could probably lower costs of providing the care! (Liability insurance, I mean).

How about a "voucher" system? You can take the basic (free) gov't plan, OR the gov't can pledge a certain amount to private carriers that insure you, and let the carriers compete for who gets the business. Which is basically what I said relating it to medicare (medicare supplemental insurance being a model)

And here I thought he was shortening Obama.

I hope the state has a lot of money to pay out lawsuits.

Obesity, as others have mentioned, is very strongly linked to genetics. In addition, there are some scientists who believe obesity is NOT as unhealthy as we are all led to believe... it is LACK OF EXERCISE that's bad, not necessarily obesity.

What they could do is require X amount of exercise every week, X number of check-ups per year. Those are quantifiable. I don't think they could mandate people be skinny. What about thin people who are unhealthy, to start?

Why stop at weight?

As Alex pointed out certain diseases can be hereditary, tall people don't live as long,overly fit people actually have a higher mortality rate as do lefties and anyone that does not drink moderate amounts of alcohol.

Now with the advent of genetic testing there are all sorts of new windows opening for determining who is higher risk for the insurance industry.

This is true, but at least that monetary decision is made and enforced equally for all citizens.

After all the word of people being denied health care coverage due to "preexisting conditions", such as being old or being pregnant, the more it seems that the gov't may actually be able to do this better than the greedy bastards who run the HMOs.

I don't know. If you don't run a business at a profit, you run a business at a deficit. The government would not try to turn a profit, per se (and very, very quick research showed profit margins of HMOs from 2.1% to 4.2% - not high by any stretch of the imagination....sometimes their profits are reported as a "profit increase of 50%", but if you are making a 2.1% profit margin and increase it by 50%, it's still only a 3.1% profit margin), and based on the profit margins I've found for HMOs (again, very quick research), that doesn't allow for a whole lot of cost reduction to the consumer to run at 0%. Consider the propensity of government to be bloated and wasteful, I would guess they would run at a HUGE deficit, constantly increasing the cost through taxation to the consumer. As I believe we are ridiculously overtaxed as it is, that to me doesn't sound appealing. To avoid running at a deficit or increasing taxes, this means care would have to be rationed, and my guess is that it would very shortly be worse than anything the private sector is doing now.

Are either of the candidates proposing socialized health care? I think both plans still involve the use of HMO's. It's just a question of how you can reduce the cost of them to the point where everyone (or almost everyone) can afford them.