If not for President Bush's Wall Street bailout, Sherry Pierce, 43, of Aurora, might have kept quiet about health care.

Instead, the TARP bill angered Pierce enough she got involved in the Tea Party Patriots, a group fighting government spending and what they perceive as attacks on personal liberties – a category that ranges from President Bush's Patriot Act to President Obama's call for a public option in health care.

"We've been grousing about this for the last 30 to 40 years," Pierce said. "We just never thought it was worth our while to get out there and protest."

As the economy suffers, more than 15 percent of Americans are completely uninsured – a number that's rising because most Americans get their health insurance through their employers. While Obama has called for a public option – a government-funded program offering a cheaper alternative for health insurance – Pierce is among those who believe that the cheap alternative will grow to replace all private insurance companies.

She also believes this will lead to a national health care system.

"We can look at Russia, we can look at England, we can look at Canada," Pierce said. "We don't want an overbearing, progressive government hanging over us."

Pierce is looking to start a Tea Party Patriot group in Aurora. And she's not just looking for Republicans.

"It's a misnomer that people think Tea Parties are full of Republicans. They're not," said Pierce, who is registered as a Republican but believes the party has lost its way.

Also breaking the Republican Party line, Pierce believes the current system of employer-based health insurance is unworkable, tying people to bad jobs and linking uninsured and unemployed rates.

"If our health care was purchased like our car insurance, it would be portable," she said.

But until the insurance companies offer individual rates as low as the group rates they offer employers, that dream is out of reach for most people. Proponents of the public option say it will offer more competition to insurance companies. But until specific plans come out of Washington, the nation is left to holler slogans at each other, with "better health care" and "no new taxes" being among the loudest.

One of the questions asked in a recent Beacon-News health care survey was if people would be willing to pay more taxes to ensure better health care for all.

The results could hardly be more divided, with 46 of respondents saying "yes" and 47 saying "no." Four people replied something other than yes or no.

The majority of the people who have adequate health insurance would not pay more taxes to ensure better health care for all (39 of 70), and the majority of people without adequate insurance would pay more taxes (14 of 22). Five people did not say if they considered their insurance "adequate."

Many respondents said they would support a hike if it would help but doubted more money to the government would mean better health care.

One Yorkville woman wrote she would be willing to pay more taxes for health care "only if I could be sure it would be used for that purpose."

Others seemed to draw a mental line between government health care and the government program Medicare, in which the government offers health care to people 65 and older. Three people who receive Medicare wrote that they would not support a tax hike to improve better health care.

"Government health insurance is socialism!!!" wrote one Medicare recipient.

Illinois and Fox Valley health care professionals give mixed reports on their experiences working with current public option systems Medicaid and Medicare.

"While it's true that sometimes the state is slow in paying its Medicaid bills, it is not unlike dealing with a private insurance company," said Bob Tanner, president and CEO of the Greater Elgin Family Care Center.

The center is a non-profit organization that provides health care to patients who are uninsured, privately insured and publicly insured. This year, Tanner said, his offices will see more than more than 21,000 patients from 194 ZIP codes.

"Our experience has been that (Medicare and Medicaid) are no more difficult than dealing with private firms such as Blue Cross or other commercial insurance payers," Tanner said.

"(Private insurance companies) also are very slow to pay bills, and they also have a number of rules and regulations they have to follow. They also deny claims. In our opinion, both insurance systems are at times challenging to work with, successfully bill and get the reimbursement back for the care we've provided to the patients."

Tanner said everyone who comes for care at his facility receives the same "high level quality care," despite what level of insurance they carry.

Margaret Kirkegaard, medical director for Illinois Health Connect, a primary-care case management program for Illinois Medicaid, does not completely agree.

"From my perspective, I practice one day a week in a residency program. There is a big difference between working in Medicaid versus private insurance," she said. "If you recommend a treatment to someone with private insurance, it is up to the patient to decide to receive treatment."

Patients with private insurance can weigh their options, Kirkegaard said. They can consider procedures and providers and are able to make their decisions based on their financial situation and their medical need.

But public insurance offers no flexibility to work outside the program, which can make health care harder to navigate and more frustrating, she said.

"On the other hand, without that, the patient would have no access to care."