will never satisfy the government is god crowd. But it has some good features. Health Savings Accounts work, I know because I have sold them and people like them (reason enough for the government to take it over). Another example of personal choice and responsibility working is Lasik eye surgery. Currently it is not covered by most plans and yet it is thriving - and from what I have seen, the cost is going down (now the government will take it over for sure). There are some areas yet to be addressed, but it is a big step in the right direction.

McCain's approach is wrong. Star Parker notes in the second to the last paragraph that issues like pre-existing conditions remain. She says it as though this is a minor issue. In fact, it is the major issue. Insurance companies exist to make money. There's nothing wrong with that. But in order to be competitive, they won't insure sick people, unless they are forced to. McCain's plan is vague about how the sick will be insured, essentially saying he'll work it out with the states.

A health policy that doesn't treat the sick isn't much good.

So explain how the $5,000 take credit is going to help me insure my family when the premiums to insure JUST my spouse were going to run nearly $10,000/year because she's currently classified as "uninsurable" by pretty much every major insurer?

I see some benefit to McCain's plan, but like others have said here, the "preexisting conditions" problems and the "uninsurable" situations are the biggest problems for most people who could afford personal health insurance but can't get it. If group plans can be forced to cover everyone, individual plans must be made available so everyone can be covered, in the same way that car insurance has to be made available to anyone who can drive a car (even at a higher expense).

Ok, so you can't afford to insure your spouse on your own. Then you have three choices: Keep her on her current insurance, buy insurance for her with the government essentially picking up part of the tab by giving you a tax credit, or don't insure her at all. If she isn't insured at all right now, at least you'll have some help in insuring her under McCain's plan. I think we also should require illegal aliens or low-income individuals to purchase health insurance or charge employers for their health coverage. Otherwise we all have to pay for their health costs as well as our own. If you work, you should pay your fair share.

This is a version of the "let the market sort it out" plan. The problem is that healthcare doesn't function as a true market. Physicians, hospitals and other providers do not compete on price, quality or service delivery. It doesn't sound to me like the market that doesn't exist is going to sort anything out.

The incentives in health care are all wrong. The most bang for the buck is accomplished with prevention, not treating a patient once they need to be hospitalized. There is an army of specialists who don't want to see the healthcare system flipped 180 degrees to prevention rather than treatment.

Removing some of the moral hazard by exposing consumers to the true costs of healthcare is a step in the right direction. Type II diabetes related expenditures alone have driven 34% of the increase in healthcare spending in the last decade. Maybe people will think twice about their third twinkie and second coke of the day if they have to pay for more of their own care.

Those with uninsurable spouses have them because government overregulates the healthcare and health insurance markets. Any proposal that suggests more government regulation and doesn't eliminate existing government regulation just lead us to more government mandated socialism. We cripple the markets and then we cripple the people. Leave the people free and we will find creative solutions for our problems. Just keep the government out!

Expecting individuals to bear the responsibility and then trying to call it insurance is creating an oxymoron. The unpredictable nature of health care problems (in addition to routine preventive care) is what necessitates a broad-based insurance approach, not an individual responsibility.

Secondly, not all markets respond to "free market principles." The health care market is not a "free market"-responsive system. Laws of supply and demand do not apply in general.

There is nothing in this approach to reduce the high cost and make it more reasonable. There is nothing here to provide us with better results for the money.

There is no moral justification for this to be only one of two nations not to provide universal health care. Where are our priorities, besides with profits for the industry?

Government mandated socialism is never the answer.

The key reason the healthcare market doesn't respond effectively to market forces is that it is already 75% socialized. Get the government out and it will respond much better and much cheaper. We can thank FDR for introducing many of these problems. We have his legacy as probably the most destructive president this nation has ever had (ever worse than W and that's pretty bad). Of course LBJ and many other so called "do-gooders" have help kill the system with their supposed good intentions.

Name a government program that actually works well. I've yet to find one. From my perspective, the most important responsibilities of the federal government relate with national defense, immigration, and international trade. The federal government can't do any of those effectively, so why would we want to trust them with something as important as healthcare?