Remind us again how Health Care will be voluntary

[RetiredGySgt]

You keep ignoring the fact that Japanese Health Care is so broken that hospitals simply REFUSE to treat patients with no money.

 

[Chris]

You keep ignoring the fact that Japanese Health Care is so broken that hospitals simply REFUSE to treat patients with no money.

Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,!!!!!!!!!!

Have you tried to see an American doctor with no money???

 

[elvis]

You keep ignoring the fact that Japanese Health Care is so broken that hospitals simply REFUSE to treat patients with no money.

Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,!!!!!!!!!!

Have you tried to see an American doctor with no money???

people with no money get treated all the time at the hospital my wife works at. that fat fuck michael moore doesn't know what he's talking about and neither do you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You keep ignoring the fact that Japanese Health Care is so broken that hospitals simply REFUSE to treat patients with no money.

Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,!!!!!!!!!!

Have you tried to see an American doctor with no money???

people with no money get treated all the time at the hospital my wife works at. that fat fuck michael moore doesn't know what he's talking about and neither do you.

My son gets taking care of at the Hospital all the time with no money. he has no job and no insurance and has not been able to pay at all the last 3 times he went. And YOU are the one putting Japan up as some EXAMPLE. They are supposed to treat everyone yet the Government does not enforce it and the Hospitals just refuse treatment and patients DIE. One ambulance tried something like 6 hospitals before negotiating with a 7th that agreed to take the patient, but he died before they got there.

Remind us again how great Japanese health care is.

 

[Harry Dresden]

socialism doesn't work, no matter how many socialist websites you quote.

and of course how many times has he posted this same drivel....which is some guys opinion...

 

[Chris]

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org --

Wait times in Canada are horrendous.
True and False again -- it depends on which province you live in, and what's wrong with you. Canada's health care system runs on federal guidelines that ensure uniform standards of care, but each territory and province administers its own program. Some provinces don't plan their facilities well enough; in those, you can have waits. Some do better. As a general rule, the farther north you live, the harder it is to get to care, simply because the doctors and hospitals are concentrated in the south. But that's just as true in any rural county in the U.S.

You can hear the bitching about it no matter where you live, though. The percentage of Canadians who'd consider giving up their beloved system consistently languishes in the single digits. A few years ago, a TV show asked Canadians to name the Greatest Canadian in history; and in a broad national consensus, they gave the honor to Tommy Douglas, the Saskatchewan premier who is considered the father of the country's health care system. (And no, it had nothing to do with the fact that he was also Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather.). In spite of that, though, grousing about health care is still unofficially Canada's third national sport after curling and hockey.

And for the country's newspapers, it's a prime watchdogging opportunity. Any little thing goes sideways at the local hospital, and it's on the front pages the next day. Those kinds of stories sell papers, because everyone is invested in that system and has a personal stake in how well it functions. The American system might benefit from this kind of constant scrutiny, because it's certainly one of the things that keeps the quality high. But it also makes people think it's far worse than it is.

Critics should be reminded that the American system is not exactly instant-on, either. When I lived in California, I had excellent insurance, and got my care through one of the best university-based systems in the nation. Yet I routinely had to wait anywhere from six to twelve weeks to get in to see a specialist. Non-emergency surgical waits could be anywhere from four weeks to four months. After two years in the BC system, I'm finding the experience to be pretty much comparable, and often better. The notable exception is MRIs, which were easy in California, but can take many months to get here. (It's the number one thing people go over the border for.) Other than that, urban Canadians get care about as fast as urban Americans do.

4. You have to wait forever to get a family doctor.
False for the vast majority of Canadians, but True for a few. Again, it all depends on where you live. I live in suburban Vancouver, and there are any number of first-rate GPs in my neighborhood who are taking new patients. If you don't have a working relationship with one, but need to see a doctor now, there are 24-hour urgent care clinics in most neighborhoods that will usually get you in and out on the minor stuff in under an hour.

It is, absolutely, harder to get to a doctor if you live out in a small town, or up in the territories. But that's just as true in the U.S. -- and in America, the government won't cover the airfare for rural folk to come down to the city for needed treatment, which all the provincial plans do.

socialism doesn't work, no matter how many socialist websites you quote.

A single payer system is not socialism.

Socialism is what they have in Great Britain, and you are right, it doesn't work well.

Great article though I knew you wouldn't read it. How else can you remain ignorant?

The great thing is this article was written by someone who has experienced both our system and the Canadian system. And she likes their system better.

 

[elvis]

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org --

Wait times in Canada are horrendous.
True and False again -- it depends on which province you live in, and what's wrong with you. Canada's health care system runs on federal guidelines that ensure uniform standards of care, but each territory and province administers its own program. Some provinces don't plan their facilities well enough; in those, you can have waits. Some do better. As a general rule, the farther north you live, the harder it is to get to care, simply because the doctors and hospitals are concentrated in the south. But that's just as true in any rural county in the U.S.

You can hear the bitching about it no matter where you live, though. The percentage of Canadians who'd consider giving up their beloved system consistently languishes in the single digits. A few years ago, a TV show asked Canadians to name the Greatest Canadian in history; and in a broad national consensus, they gave the honor to Tommy Douglas, the Saskatchewan premier who is considered the father of the country's health care system. (And no, it had nothing to do with the fact that he was also Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather.). In spite of that, though, grousing about health care is still unofficially Canada's third national sport after curling and hockey.

And for the country's newspapers, it's a prime watchdogging opportunity. Any little thing goes sideways at the local hospital, and it's on the front pages the next day. Those kinds of stories sell papers, because everyone is invested in that system and has a personal stake in how well it functions. The American system might benefit from this kind of constant scrutiny, because it's certainly one of the things that keeps the quality high. But it also makes people think it's far worse than it is.

Critics should be reminded that the American system is not exactly instant-on, either. When I lived in California, I had excellent insurance, and got my care through one of the best university-based systems in the nation. Yet I routinely had to wait anywhere from six to twelve weeks to get in to see a specialist. Non-emergency surgical waits could be anywhere from four weeks to four months. After two years in the BC system, I'm finding the experience to be pretty much comparable, and often better. The notable exception is MRIs, which were easy in California, but can take many months to get here. (It's the number one thing people go over the border for.) Other than that, urban Canadians get care about as fast as urban Americans do.

4. You have to wait forever to get a family doctor.
False for the vast majority of Canadians, but True for a few. Again, it all depends on where you live. I live in suburban Vancouver, and there are any number of first-rate GPs in my neighborhood who are taking new patients. If you don't have a working relationship with one, but need to see a doctor now, there are 24-hour urgent care clinics in most neighborhoods that will usually get you in and out on the minor stuff in under an hour.

It is, absolutely, harder to get to a doctor if you live out in a small town, or up in the territories. But that's just as true in the U.S. -- and in America, the government won't cover the airfare for rural folk to come down to the city for needed treatment, which all the provincial plans do.

socialism doesn't work, no matter how many socialist websites you quote.

A single payer system is not socialism.

Socialism is what they have in Great Britain, and you are right, it doesn't work well.

Great article though I knew you wouldn't read it. How else can you remain ignorant?

The great thing is this article was written by someone who has experienced both our system and the Canadian system. And she likes their system better.

i am sure there are some people who liked Stalin's Russia better than the United States. what's your point.

 

[Chris]

The percentage of Canadians who'd consider giving up their beloved system consistently languishes in the single digits. A few years ago, a TV show asked Canadians to name the Greatest Canadian in history; and in a broad national consensus, they gave the honor to Tommy Douglas, the Saskatchewan premier who is considered the father of the country's health care system.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The percentage of Canadians who'd consider giving up their beloved system consistently languishes in the single digits. A few years ago, a TV show asked Canadians to name the Greatest Canadian in history; and in a broad national consensus, they gave the honor to Tommy Douglas, the Saskatchewan premier who is considered the father of the country's health care system.

Chris i live in a state with more people than Canada....things are much easier with 30 million people to look after than 300 million.....and Canada does not have the rampant immigration problem we have....try looking at some of the hurdles that are in the way instead of just going to the finish line,and saying how easy it is....

 

[code1211]

If this plan leads to the death of the insurance companies, I'm all for it.

If it simple subsidizes the system we have now, it is a mistake.

A single payer plan is the best and most efficient system.

If you say so, there must be a reason that you say so. However, in every other economic endeavor, competition produces efficiency. Greater competition produces greater efficiency.

When a monopoy developes in the private sector, the government acts to "break it up". This is done to restore competition.

Why do you suppose that a monopoly run by people who have no motivation to restrain costs will be efficient?

 

[code1211]

Sorry, honey, get your facts straight.

Every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because our system is incredible inefficient and greedy. It is based on making money off of sick people, NOT keeping people healthy. How perverse is that?

You really need to do some reading about the rest of the world. I suggest you start with this...

Universal health care - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

those countries have enjoyed double-digit unemployment for the last 15 years, dumbfuck.

The unemployment rate in Japan is 5%, dumbfuck.

Do you ever research anything?

The examples from other heavily populated countries are tantalizing. There are things that work abroad that don't always work here. Trains come to mind. In the Boston-Washington corridor, trains work fine. In the Colorado-Montana corridor, not so much.

I know that when I was in school, the walk in clinic on campus was very useful and not populated by the top surgeons of the country. Most sickness does not require the top people. Triage (?) clinics with no cost would be a nice thing in consideration of cost, convenience and availability.

If we want to reduce the cost of health care, we need to reduce the costs. Signing waivers upon admittance will probably become common place in the near future. Walk in clinics should definitely replace the emergency room. "Take two aspirin and call if the symptoms don't improve" will probably replace an MRI and an X-Ray. This can only happen with tort reform.

In Japan, there is wide use of "Company Doctors" which can be accessed by the employees of large employers during the work day.

Our paradigms regarding health care are likely about to be changed. Expect to see wistful remebrances by high profile celebs of the Milburn Stone kind of a doctor with the personnal touch and the less expensive treatment that "worked just fine for me".

The Registered nurse might become the "doctor" as we currently understand it with the authority to write perscriptions for defined ailments.

 

[code1211]

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org --

Wait times in Canada are horrendous.
True and False again -- it depends on which province you live in, and what's wrong with you. Canada's health care system runs on federal guidelines that ensure uniform standards of care, but each territory and province administers its own program. Some provinces don't plan their facilities well enough; in those, you can have waits. Some do better. As a general rule, the farther north you live, the harder it is to get to care, simply because the doctors and hospitals are concentrated in the south. But that's just as true in any rural county in the U.S.

You can hear the bitching about it no matter where you live, though. The percentage of Canadians who'd consider giving up their beloved system consistently languishes in the single digits. A few years ago, a TV show asked Canadians to name the Greatest Canadian in history; and in a broad national consensus, they gave the honor to Tommy Douglas, the Saskatchewan premier who is considered the father of the country's health care system. (And no, it had nothing to do with the fact that he was also Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather.). In spite of that, though, grousing about health care is still unofficially Canada's third national sport after curling and hockey.

And for the country's newspapers, it's a prime watchdogging opportunity. Any little thing goes sideways at the local hospital, and it's on the front pages the next day. Those kinds of stories sell papers, because everyone is invested in that system and has a personal stake in how well it functions. The American system might benefit from this kind of constant scrutiny, because it's certainly one of the things that keeps the quality high. But it also makes people think it's far worse than it is.

Critics should be reminded that the American system is not exactly instant-on, either. When I lived in California, I had excellent insurance, and got my care through one of the best university-based systems in the nation. Yet I routinely had to wait anywhere from six to twelve weeks to get in to see a specialist. Non-emergency surgical waits could be anywhere from four weeks to four months. After two years in the BC system, I'm finding the experience to be pretty much comparable, and often better. The notable exception is MRIs, which were easy in California, but can take many months to get here. (It's the number one thing people go over the border for.) Other than that, urban Canadians get care about as fast as urban Americans do.

4. You have to wait forever to get a family doctor.
False for the vast majority of Canadians, but True for a few. Again, it all depends on where you live. I live in suburban Vancouver, and there are any number of first-rate GPs in my neighborhood who are taking new patients. If you don't have a working relationship with one, but need to see a doctor now, there are 24-hour urgent care clinics in most neighborhoods that will usually get you in and out on the minor stuff in under an hour.

It is, absolutely, harder to get to a doctor if you live out in a small town, or up in the territories. But that's just as true in the U.S. -- and in America, the government won't cover the airfare for rural folk to come down to the city for needed treatment, which all the provincial plans do.

socialism doesn't work, no matter how many socialist websites you quote.

A single payer system is not socialism.

Socialism is what they have in Great Britain, and you are right, it doesn't work well.

Great article though I knew you wouldn't read it. How else can you remain ignorant?

The great thing is this article was written by someone who has experienced both our system and the Canadian system. And she likes their system better.

She said that she lives in Vancouver. How's the care in northern Saskatchewan?

 

[code1211]

Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org --

Wait times in Canada are horrendous.
True and False again -- it depends on which province you live in, and what's wrong with you. Canada's health care system runs on federal guidelines that ensure uniform standards of care, but each territory and province administers its own program. Some provinces don't plan their facilities well enough; in those, you can have waits. Some do better. As a general rule, the farther north you live, the harder it is to get to care, simply because the doctors and hospitals are concentrated in the south. But that's just as true in any rural county in the U.S.

You can hear the bitching about it no matter where you live, though. The percentage of Canadians who'd consider giving up their beloved system consistently languishes in the single digits. A few years ago, a TV show asked Canadians to name the Greatest Canadian in history; and in a broad national consensus, they gave the honor to Tommy Douglas, the Saskatchewan premier who is considered the father of the country's health care system. (And no, it had nothing to do with the fact that he was also Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather.). In spite of that, though, grousing about health care is still unofficially Canada's third national sport after curling and hockey.

And for the country's newspapers, it's a prime watchdogging opportunity. Any little thing goes sideways at the local hospital, and it's on the front pages the next day. Those kinds of stories sell papers, because everyone is invested in that system and has a personal stake in how well it functions. The American system might benefit from this kind of constant scrutiny, because it's certainly one of the things that keeps the quality high. But it also makes people think it's far worse than it is.

Critics should be reminded that the American system is not exactly instant-on, either. When I lived in California, I had excellent insurance, and got my care through one of the best university-based systems in the nation. Yet I routinely had to wait anywhere from six to twelve weeks to get in to see a specialist. Non-emergency surgical waits could be anywhere from four weeks to four months. After two years in the BC system, I'm finding the experience to be pretty much comparable, and often better. The notable exception is MRIs, which were easy in California, but can take many months to get here. (It's the number one thing people go over the border for.) Other than that, urban Canadians get care about as fast as urban Americans do.

4. You have to wait forever to get a family doctor.
False for the vast majority of Canadians, but True for a few. Again, it all depends on where you live. I live in suburban Vancouver, and there are any number of first-rate GPs in my neighborhood who are taking new patients. If you don't have a working relationship with one, but need to see a doctor now, there are 24-hour urgent care clinics in most neighborhoods that will usually get you in and out on the minor stuff in under an hour.

It is, absolutely, harder to get to a doctor if you live out in a small town, or up in the territories. But that's just as true in the U.S. -- and in America, the government won't cover the airfare for rural folk to come down to the city for needed treatment, which all the provincial plans do.

socialism doesn't work, no matter how many socialist websites you quote.

A single payer system is not socialism.

Socialism is what they have in Great Britain, and you are right, it doesn't work well.

Great article though I knew you wouldn't read it. How else can you remain ignorant?

The great thing is this article was written by someone who has experienced both our system and the Canadian system. And she likes their system better.

I had a life threatening illness in 2001. When the condition was diagnosed, the progression from "This is what you've got" to "The surgery went well and you'll be out of here as soon as you pass gas" was about three weeks. During the interim, I was poked and probed by three different specialists who all worked in cooperation with the GP who was the ringleader of the process.

If this lady had to wait 4 weeks to 4 months to get similar treatment, she had a bad plan or an incompetent GP. My condition was life threatening, but not emergency as it could be controlled with antibiotics.

At the first onset of symptoms, though, if I could not have seen a doc, within a week, I'd have been dead.

 

[code1211]

The percentage of Canadians who'd consider giving up their beloved system consistently languishes in the single digits. A few years ago, a TV show asked Canadians to name the Greatest Canadian in history; and in a broad national consensus, they gave the honor to Tommy Douglas, the Saskatchewan premier who is considered the father of the country's health care system.

According to a recent poll of Americans, people who are somewhat or very satisfied with their health care is about 75%. About 60% think that the government would reduce their satisfaction.

Power Line - Dueling Polls on Health Care

Actually, what I think is most striking about the Times' poll is the lack of any real enthusiasm for socialized medicine. A large majority of respondents in that survey think that major changes need to be made in our health care system. Yet 77 percent are either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their own health care, and 63 percent are "very" or "somewhat" concerned that government medicine will make their own health care worse.

 

[editec]

As you probably know, Chris, I don't have the same faith that the solution is Single Payer Univeraal Insurance that you do.

Nevertheless, I must commend you on keeping you cool and responding with FACTS in the face of these childish personal attacks on you ,and despite the fact that your detractors bring nothing to the debate other than their vacuous talking points which are, as you and I both know, mostly lies exaggerations and angry right wing nonsense.

The solution is, I think, a combination of some kind of universal HC coverage (not insurance, but plain old HC, AND a dramatic INCREASE in SUPPLY.

You probably know that we are still training the same number of Doctors per year as we were training thirty years ago.

So naturally the market is responding as we'd exect it too.

Demand is up and supply is down, ergo the price of HC continues to escalate much faster than the prices of most other things.

It won't matter whether we put into service a single player system or we keep the same system, the price of HC will continue to rise as long as the supply/demand curve is working again us.

If you or wanted to go to medical school in the USA, we'd find it difficult to get in regardless of our GPIs, and the cost of going to that school would insure that we had to make a huge amount of money when we got out.

Now compare that situation to the experience of somebody going to medical or nursing school in most other civilized nations.

Their students go to school for free or for not very much money.

Friend of mine is going to medical school in Germany, right now.

Her cost?

Almost nothing.

Here in the USA she'd get out of medical school burdened with school loans and would therefore have to make big bucks just to get out of debt.

If we want to solve the probllem of health care we have to increase the SUPPLY of it, first.

Any other solution will fail to solve the root cause of the problem.

 

[auditor0007]

The idea behind having a government plan is sound, if the government is not permitted to subsidize their plan with taxes. If the government plan was set up to run on its own and to compete directly with private insurers, then there should be no argument against it.

The biggest argument is that the government plan will be subsidized by taxes, making it impossible for private insurance companies to compete, and while I agree that we need some type of government plan to cover those who cannot currently get insurance, I understand why so many are against it. So keep it simple. Let the government plan compete directly with private plans but without any tax subsidies. Then if the government plan works better and is cheaper on its own, people will have a choice.

But here is the catch; all insurers would have to accept those with pre-existing conditions without charging higher premiums to those individuals. Since the goverenment plan would obviously take on those individuals, so too would the private insurers. Otherwise, the private insurers would continue to reject anyone with a pre-existing condition and all those people would be forced onto the government plan, making the goverenment plan much more expensive to operate.

 

[Harry Dresden]

As you probably know, Chris, I don't have the same faith that the solution is Single Payer Univeraal Insurance that you do.

Nevertheless, I must commend you on keeping you cool and responding with FACTS in the face of these childish personal attacks on you ,and despite the fact that your detractors bring nothing to the debate other than their vacuous talking points which are, as you and I both know, mostly lies exaggerations and angry right wing nonsense.

The solution is, I think, a combination of some kind of universal HC coverage (not insurance, but plain old HC, AND a dramatic INCREASE in SUPPLY.

You probably know that we are still training the same number of Doctors per year as we were training thirty years ago.

So naturally the market is responding as we'd exect it too.

Demand is up and supply is down, ergo the price of HC continues to escalate much faster than the prices of most other things.

It won't matter whether we put into service a single player system or we keep the same system, the price of HC will continue to rise as long as the supply/demand curve is working again us.

If you or wanted to go to medical school in the USA, we'd find it difficult to get in regardless of our GPIs, and the cost of going to that school would insure that we had to make a huge amount of money when we got out.

Now compare that situation to the experience of somebody going to medical or nursing school in most other civilized nations.

Their students go to school for free or for not very much money.

Friend of mine is going to medical school in Germany, right now.

Her cost?

Almost nothing.

Here in the USA she'd get out of medical school burdened with school loans and would therefore have to make big bucks just to get out of debt.

If we want to solve the probllem of health care we have to increase the SUPPLY of it, first.

Any other solution will fail to solve the root cause of the problem.

you must not read his posts to well Ed....he repeats the same shit....EVEN if someone proves him wrong or at least shows some cracks in his facts.....he will just keep on saying the same shit....if you think that is the way to be....go for it.....

 

[Oddball]

The idea behind having a government plan is sound, if the government is not permitted to subsidize their plan with taxes. If the government plan was set up to run on its own and to compete directly with private insurers, then there should be no argument against it.

The biggest argument is that the government plan will be subsidized by taxes, making it impossible for private insurance companies to compete, and while I agree that we need some type of government plan to cover those who cannot currently get insurance, I understand why so many are against it. So keep it simple. Let the government plan compete directly with private plans but without any tax subsidies. Then if the government plan works better and is cheaper on its own, people will have a choice.

But here is the catch; all insurers would have to accept those with pre-existing conditions without charging higher premiums to those individuals. Since the goverenment plan would obviously take on those individuals, so too would the private insurers. Otherwise, the private insurers would continue to reject anyone with a pre-existing condition and all those people would be forced onto the government plan, making the goverenment plan much more expensive to operate.

The biggest and best argument is it is the complete absence of any evidence that Big Daddy Big Gubbament has ever delivered what it promised, and overwhelming evidence that they're completely incapable of controlling the costs of anything.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The idea behind having a government plan is sound, if the government is not permitted to subsidize their plan with taxes. If the government plan was set up to run on its own and to compete directly with private insurers, then there should be no argument against it.

The biggest argument is that the government plan will be subsidized by taxes, making it impossible for private insurance companies to compete, and while I agree that we need some type of government plan to cover those who cannot currently get insurance, I understand why so many are against it. So keep it simple. Let the government plan compete directly with private plans but without any tax subsidies. Then if the government plan works better and is cheaper on its own, people will have a choice.

But here is the catch; all insurers would have to accept those with pre-existing conditions without charging higher premiums to those individuals. Since the goverenment plan would obviously take on those individuals, so too would the private insurers. Otherwise, the private insurers would continue to reject anyone with a pre-existing condition and all those people would be forced onto the government plan, making the goverenment plan much more expensive to operate.

If the government plan receives no subsidies, I have no particular objection to it, but I also don't see the point to it. If it is to compete for customers against private insurance companies, its costs will be similar and therefore its premiums will be similar. Although in absolute terms, health insurance companies' profits appear to be quite large, as a percentage of revenues, they are really quite low, so the elimination of profits will not make much difference it the government plan's costs. The most realistic hope is that by eliminating profits the government plan might for private plans to lower premiums by as much as 3%, but while welcome that would have little effect on the larger problems the health insurance overhaul is supposed to address. Additionally, if private insurance companies respond by greatly increasing advertising and other marketing costs, it could be that premiums will go up for both the government plan and for private plans.

While Obama continues to claim that a government plan is essential to combating the problems of our present health insurance system, the only reason he has been able to provide in support of this claim is that the government plan will keep private plans "honest". What does this mean? Is Obama saying private insurance companies are cheating their customers and the government plan won't? If this is so, why isn't Obama's Justice Department prosecuting the executives - apparently nearly all of them if this problem is so large as to require a government plan as the only possible solution - and suing the companies? The truth is that this is a slogan, not an explanation of his claim that a government plan is necessary to effectively address the larger problems with our health insurance coverage. It appears Obama's push for a public plan is motivated entirely by ideological and political considerations and has no basis in any real expectation this plan will bring any real benefits to the American people.

 

[auditor0007]

The idea behind having a government plan is sound, if the government is not permitted to subsidize their plan with taxes. If the government plan was set up to run on its own and to compete directly with private insurers, then there should be no argument against it.

The biggest argument is that the government plan will be subsidized by taxes, making it impossible for private insurance companies to compete, and while I agree that we need some type of government plan to cover those who cannot currently get insurance, I understand why so many are against it. So keep it simple. Let the government plan compete directly with private plans but without any tax subsidies. Then if the government plan works better and is cheaper on its own, people will have a choice.

But here is the catch; all insurers would have to accept those with pre-existing conditions without charging higher premiums to those individuals. Since the goverenment plan would obviously take on those individuals, so too would the private insurers. Otherwise, the private insurers would continue to reject anyone with a pre-existing condition and all those people would be forced onto the government plan, making the goverenment plan much more expensive to operate.

If the government plan receives no subsidies, I have no particular objection to it, but I also don't see the point to it. If it is to compete for customers against private insurance companies, its costs will be similar and therefore its premiums will be similar. Although in absolute terms, health insurance companies' profits appear to be quite large, as a percentage of revenues, they are really quite low, so the elimination of profits will not make much difference it the government plan's costs. The most realistic hope is that by eliminating profits the government plan might for private plans to lower premiums by as much as 3%, but while welcome that would have little effect on the larger problems the health insurance overhaul is supposed to address. Additionally, if private insurance companies respond by greatly increasing advertising and other marketing costs, it could be that premiums will go up for both the government plan and for private plans.

While Obama continues to claim that a government plan is essential to combating the problems of our present health insurance system, the only reason he has been able to provide in support of this claim is that the government plan will keep private plans "honest". What does this mean? Is Obama saying private insurance companies are cheating their customers and the government plan won't? If this is so, why isn't Obama's Justice Department prosecuting the executives - apparently nearly all of them if this problem is so large as to require a government plan as the only possible solution - and suing the companies? The truth is that this is a slogan, not an explanation of his claim that a government plan is necessary to effectively address the larger problems with our health insurance coverage. It appears Obama's push for a public plan is motivated entirely by ideological and political considerations and has no basis in any real expectation this plan will bring any real benefits to the American people.

While there would be a small savings from the lack of a profit in a government run program, the true savings would be in the administration of such a plan. Currently, administrative costs eat up over 25% of healthcare costs. The argument is that government administration costs would be drastically less. Of course, this is speculation, but I would be interested in seeing how it pans out. If true, a government plan could run with much lower overhead, which in turn would equate to much lower premiums.

Obviously, if this turns out to be true, private insurance companies would not be able to compete as most would turn to the public option. That seems to be what scares the insurance companies the most.