Hi Everyone- thanks for reading my article. I, too, am wary of some of the ideas put forth by the GOP. I do like the idea of expanding health savings accounts because that is the closest idea to people owning their own health insurance plans, at least for non-catastrophic medical needs.

However, I think it's positive for the GOP to get the country seriously talking about healthcare costs from a different perspective. My gut tells me that they are only getting the ideas out there because they must say something if ObamaCare is declared unconstitutional.

It's important to remember that most Americans get their health insurance coverage through their employer, a practice that was begun during WWII when a labor shortage and wage freeze led many companies to lure workers with health benefits as a "perk." That practice has remained and employers now receive tax credits for offering healthcare insurance benefits for their employees.

Unfortunately, this practice has also caused an "entitlement" mentality as well, with many insured Americans- even "conservative" Americans- not knowing or even caring about the costs of healthcare because they are "covered" by their employer-based health insurance. If we think we were overwhelmed by all the regulations and tax increases associated with ObamaCare, just wait until Americans realize that true liberty is really choosing your own healthcare insurance (and, yes, that means doing your own research and reading up on different plans, not having your boss do it for you). There will be an uproar even from so-called "conservative" Americans that will equal the uproar about ObamaCare. The "nanny-state" mentality in this country is already quite entrenched.

So, I am not offended by the GOP raising the discussion. As I said in my article, I don't know that they will get very far with anything until we have, hopefully, a new Congress and a new President. As we have learned, however, we need to keep letting our "public servants" know that they work for us.

Susan Berry

Merry Christmas to all in the Big Government community! -Susan Berry

Hi Rebas, thanks for writing. I agree- personal character is essential and an important indicator. I'll be looking to see how Newt addresses the issues regarding his personal conduct. He appears to have gone through some kind of spiritual change, and, as a psychologist, I know people can make positive changes in their lives. But, as conservatives, we will have to assess whether we think he is just responding in a way that is politically expedient, or whether he appears sincere. It's unfortunate that some of the other candidates who do seem to have a more stable record of consistent conservative behavior aren't getting more coverage. But, there's still time. I'm making an effort to watch the candidates in different forums. As I mentioned to Eileen, I've found Fox News' Special Report online interviews with each of the candidates a good source. I believe Dick Morris is interviewing all the candidates individually on his website as well. It's helpful if everyone can recommend good resources so that we can do our homework and talk about them. Susan Berry

Thanks for reading, Eileen. Have you seen the special online panel interview with Rick Santorum on Special Report with Bret Baier http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/inde... I thought this was a great interview with Rick. He certainly could be a great candidate if he had more coverage. Susan Berry

Thanks for reading, porchhound. I am not endorsing Newt, just acknowledging his pros and cons and encouraging the Big Gov community to debate whether he's a viable nominee. I certainly appreciate your insights. Susan Berry

Thanks for reading my post, Nickster. Right, I am acknowledging Newt's baggage for what it is. And I am not endorsing him at this point, but hoping my article will encourage the Big Gov community to talk about his pros and cons. Susan Berry

Excellent article, Dr. Moffit. Regarding this section:

"At the time of its enactment, Clinton Administration officials absurdly claimed that Section 4507 liberalized private contracting in Medicare. In fact, it imposed an unprecedented and unique restriction on the right of Medicare patients to spend their own money on lawful medical services provided by a doctor of their choice. Mark Pauly, a prominent health care economist at the University of Pennsylvania, has observed: “In contrast to people with private insurance, people on Medicare cannot pay with their own money for something that is more medically valuable to them than it is to the Medicare bureaucracy.”[61]"

It's important to note that the same Clinton era rules have stipulated that those American seniors who would prefer to opt out of Medicare entirely in order to pursue their own private health insurance, must also opt out of receiving their Social Security benefits, even though they have contributed to Social Security throughout their working years. In fact, if a senior has been receiving Social Security benefits already, and later decides to opt out of Medicare to pursue private treatment, he or she must pay back the federal government for all prior Social Security benefits he or she has received as well! This is what the current Medicare Lawsuit is all about, and Sen. Jim DeMint has introduced a bill in the Senate to break the relationship between Medicare and Social Security.

Interestingly, Steve left the traditional college environment to pursue his dream and was successful. We can only hope that our country will support more young people in pursuit of their dreams and aspirations, and recognize that we need to do much more to encourage the brightest young Americans to become our future leaders and innovators.

Hi, if you look at the fourth paragraph, the words, "United Nations Conference" are hyperlinked to that very article. Thanks for reading.