Why do we expect the government to administer public safety, but not public health ?

[john]

Because safety is not run by Marxists

[Roboron]

Congress has no constitutional authority to give government health care

[Common Sense]

Nope, not public health. It is a proven recipe for disaster and corruption, as well as massive cost.

[Angry mobster]

Why do you confuse infrastructure with entitlements? Heck i think im entitled to a new flat panel TV and an RV and a lear jet. Why don't i just rob say a few million bucks from all of you so i can have those things i want?

[How_Would_I_Know]

Because public health effects a community.. your health effects you.

[nora22000]

Excellent question, Mr. !

I guess the short answer is a fear that Big Brother will turn us into the Matrix nation or something like that.

Those making money off the current system tap into those fears to get people to help them kill health care reform every 20 years or so--once per generation in our history since Ben Franklin, who created both public safety and public health care initiatives and got the first done and the second not done.

Blinding force: My grandfather was an ambulance driver (horse-drawn, Bellevue Hosp, 1910 era) and his wife my grandmother was a public health nurse, and both were big proponents of universal healthcare. I think 'public health' and 'the public's health' are definitely related, if not the same thing.

I think we'll stop looking at health care as 'entitlements' after swine flu hits us with major suffering this coming fall and winter. Those who haven't had good healthcare the last 5 years or so will be more susceptible and will readily pass the disease along to the rest of us, and the US will have worse outcomes than other developed nations as many of those who think that health care is 'earned' find themselves just as entitled to die as anyone else.

Hmm.... death IS the 'Great Equalizer' huh?

[Nic]

excellent point. however, there are too many monopolies within the health insurance industry, so even mentioning national health care the propaganda deems you as a communist.

But, yes, I think you are quite right in your point

[Melissa Baker]

Liberals, when you talk ask about government, please specify which government you are talking about. There is government and there is government.

Anyway, even though you always dishonestly omit this part, the answer is that public safety is promotion of general welfare, where as health care is individual welfare.

Public health is entirely different issue. FEMA already has authority and capability to combat for example pandemics.

[Holbrook]

very easy...and if NeoLibs have half the brain power of a cockroach they will see it...

Police/Fire etc: Benefit EVERYONE

Universal Healthcare: Benefits the 3% who don't have insurance and makes the rest of us suffer...don't fall for the misinformation from the Idiot in Chief and the Axis of Idiots because the Bill does say if you change your private insurance you will have to go on the Government run one...sad how all NeoLibs parrot George Sorros' Talking Points daily...

[dudeman612]

If you are talking about the federal government, they really have no constitutional authority for any of what you listed. It's main role is for the defense of the country, to control the currency, foreign relations, immigration policy and interstate relations.

State and local governments are the ones that take care of police and fire protection. And the reason why that is taken care of and not health care is because health care is managed on an individual level and effects primarily the individual and their family, not the entire population at large. Police and fire protection covers the entire swath of the population, and if everyone doesn't pay into it, then there will be free riders benefiting without contributing, yet if it were managed and paid for on an individual/event basis, then we would slip into lawlessness. Protecting the rights of citizens is the primary function of a government, not to ensure health care.