Okay, I give up...

[MaggieMae]

Health care reform is just too expensive to "do" this year, no matter how the numbers are manipulated. (But I still want to hear what Obama has to say at today's press conference.) My preference would be that because he is losing political capital on the health issue, he would be wise to turn his full attention to the other two priorities: education and energy, both of which are much more flexible issues among the American public.

HOWEVER, that said, here's my problem with the Republican politicians who have consistently just said NO to any health care reform other than their own well-worn proposals. The major talking heads this past weekend (McCain, Graham, and the others parroting each other) have been once more been beating the drum for getting us into another conflict over Iran by demanding that Obama "denounce" the Iranian leadership and ally himself with the moderates . What they have been saying sounds eerily familiar to the subtle justifications for invading Iraq, which ultimately happened.

Do they not think that an incursion into Iran would not be just as costly as Iraq? If the Republicans are so all-fired concerned about out of control deficit spending, just how do they propose to do another war? I'm reading this debate like this:

Potential cost of health care reform = kill the beast.
Potential cost of another trillion dollar war = bring it on.

 

[MaggieMae]

Okay, monitors--why is this thread tagged "OLD" when it was posted less than an hour ago? If you don't like the slot, then move it, but it's hardly OLD!

 

[Immanuel]

I'd like to hear what his ideas are as well.

I will say that I am opposed to anything that puts the government in sole control of either our health care or our health insurance, but hearing his ideas can't hurt. Somebody needs to come up with an idea because we are in a health care crisis. Personally, I think if both sides were to sit down and discuss the issue then something could be done, but they are only interested in beating each other up as in every other issue and nothing will ever get done.

Immie

 

[Political Junky]

Health care reform is just too expensive to "do" this year, no matter how the numbers are manipulated. (But I still want to hear what Obama has to say at today's press conference.) My preference would be that because he is losing political capital on the health issue, he would be wise to turn his full attention to the other two priorities: education and energy, both of which are much more flexible issues among the American public.

HOWEVER, that said, here's my problem with the Republican politicians who have consistently just said NO to any health care reform other than their own well-worn proposals. The major talking heads this past weekend (McCain, Graham, and the others parroting each other) have been once more been beating the drum for getting us into another conflict over Iran by demanding that Obama "denounce" the Iranian leadership and ally himself with the moderates . What they have been saying sounds eerily familiar to the subtle justifications for invading Iraq, which ultimately happened.

Do they not think that an incursion into Iran would not be just as costly as Iraq? If the Republicans are so all-fired concerned about out of control deficit spending, just how do they propose to do another war? I'm reading this debate like this:

Potential cost of health care reform = kill the beast.
Potential cost of another trillion dollar war = bring it on.

I won't give up on a public plan this year. The President was very strong today in his support of a public plan.
He said, "Why would it drive private insurance out of business?" he asked rhetorically, pointing out that the industry repeatedly argues that private insurance is the best and the government can't run anything.
He said the administration's position is a "public plan makes sense."

 

[Said1]

Health care reform is just too expensive to "do" this year, no matter how the numbers are manipulated. (But I still want to hear what Obama has to say at today's press conference.) My preference would be that because he is losing political capital on the health issue, he would be wise to turn his full attention to the other two priorities: education and energy, both of which are much more flexible issues among the American public.

HOWEVER, that said, here's my problem with the Republican politicians who have consistently just said NO to any health care reform other than their own well-worn proposals. The major talking heads this past weekend (McCain, Graham, and the others parroting each other) have been once more been beating the drum for getting us into another conflict over Iran by demanding that Obama "denounce" the Iranian leadership and ally himself with the moderates . What they have been saying sounds eerily familiar to the subtle justifications for invading Iraq, which ultimately happened.

Do they not think that an incursion into Iran would not be just as costly as Iraq? If the Republicans are so all-fired concerned about out of control deficit spending, just how do they propose to do another war? I'm reading this debate like this:

Potential cost of health care reform = kill the beast.
Potential cost of another trillion dollar war = bring it on.

I won't give up on a public plan this year. The President was very strong today in his support of a public plan.
He said, "Why would it drive private insurance out of business?" he asked rhetorically, pointing out that the industry repeatedly argues that private insurance is the best and the government can't run anything.
He said the administration's position is a "public plan makes sense."

Going for the 'common sense', angle. Worked with NAFTA.

 

[Navy1960]

I've made a ton of suggestions on healthcare on here, and well it's no secret where my political feelings lay. I am not supporter of a "public option" as it applies to the Federal Govt. . As it will be too costly, will lead to lower quality of care, and won't cover everyone. I do recognize a desperate need to lower the costs associated with healthcare and healthcare insurance and by doing so making it easier for those who want it and need to be able to access it. One of the best ways to do this, to allow for privately funded healthcare insurance co-ops that allow individuals, small business, and many others to come together to purchase group coverage. Other ways are promoting competetion through federal grants to those companies wishing to provide healthcare to low income individuals and familes. Still even more ways to do so would be to allow for Federal funding through state run Universal Health care programs that are voted on from state to state. There are many ways to do this without a federal govt. that regulates the same people they would be competing with. This is a complete and utter falacy if people think this will lower the costs of healthcare insurance, it will lead to a bloated system where the FICA deduction is much higher to pay for this "public option" as well as year end tax on those who have employee sponsored healthcare plans. I don't believe anyone denies the need to reform healthcare. I do think though that the ways to go about it are what is at issue.

 

[Immanuel]

I won't give up on a public plan this year. The President was very strong today in his support of a public plan.
He said, "Why would it drive private insurance out of business?" he asked rhetorically, pointing out that the industry repeatedly argues that private insurance is the best and the government can't run anything.
He said the administration's position is a "public plan makes sense."

I have not yet heard what the President had to say. As to why would it drive private insurance out of business, the preliminary reports I read on this said that his plan would not allow any private insurance companies to offer any policies that offered the same services that the public plan offered meaning that if the public plan covered MRIs then no private insurance would be allowed to cover MRIs. That is utterly ridiculous.

Now, as I said, that was the preliminary reports about his health care plan from several months ago. Whether that part as stuck or not, I have no idea, but if it does stick then it would drive private insurance out of the market simply because they would be prevented by law from offering health coverage.

Immie

 

[Political Junky]

I won't give up on a public plan this year. The President was very strong today in his support of a public plan.
He said, "Why would it drive private insurance out of business?" he asked rhetorically, pointing out that the industry repeatedly argues that private insurance is the best and the government can't run anything.
He said the administration's position is a "public plan makes sense."

I have not yet heard what the President had to say. As to why would it drive private insurance out of business, the preliminary reports I read on this said that his plan would not allow any private insurance companies to offer any policies that offered the same services that the public plan offered meaning that if the public plan covered MRIs then no private insurance would be allowed to cover MRIs. That is utterly ridiculous.

Now, as I said, that was the preliminary reports about his health care plan from several months ago. Whether that part as stuck or not, I have no idea, but if it does stick then it would drive private insurance out of the market simply because they would be prevented by law from offering health coverage.

Immie

What you heard was republican, health insurance, and pharmaceutical talking points ... in other words, Bullshit.

 

[Annie]

I won't give up on a public plan this year. The President was very strong today in his support of a public plan.
He said, "Why would it drive private insurance out of business?" he asked rhetorically, pointing out that the industry repeatedly argues that private insurance is the best and the government can't run anything.
He said the administration's position is a "public plan makes sense."

I have not yet heard what the President had to say. As to why would it drive private insurance out of business, the preliminary reports I read on this said that his plan would not allow any private insurance companies to offer any policies that offered the same services that the public plan offered meaning that if the public plan covered MRIs then no private insurance would be allowed to cover MRIs. That is utterly ridiculous.

Now, as I said, that was the preliminary reports about his health care plan from several months ago. Whether that part as stuck or not, I have no idea, but if it does stick then it would drive private insurance out of the market simply because they would be prevented by law from offering health coverage.

Immie

I've not heard anything of the kind regarding treatments/tests. I've heard that there will be oversight on what test would be allowed under which conditions, but that is nothing new. If I want an MRI it's the Dr, not me that can get that ordered.

No, from what I can see, the question of the 'plan' and 'promise of not losing your preferred provider' has to do with costs, pure and simple. The gov't plan, just like Medicare/Medicaid will determine how much they'll pay. The private insurers don't have that ability. Thus the cost of gov't plan will be lower. Why would an employer pay higher premium? However, once most have jumped onto the bandwagon, the gov't can choose who will get care and who won't. 85 year old need an artificial limb due to diabetes? Not so much.

 

[MaggieMae]

I've made a ton of suggestions on healthcare on here, and well it's no secret where my political feelings lay. I am not supporter of a "public option" as it applies to the Federal Govt. . As it will be too costly, will lead to lower quality of care, and won't cover everyone. I do recognize a desperate need to lower the costs associated with healthcare and healthcare insurance and by doing so making it easier for those who want it and need to be able to access it. One of the best ways to do this, to allow for privately funded healthcare insurance co-ops that allow individuals, small business, and many others to come together to purchase group coverage. Other ways are promoting competetion through federal grants to those companies wishing to provide healthcare to low income individuals and familes. Still even more ways to do so would be to allow for Federal funding through state run Universal Health care programs that are voted on from state to state. There are many ways to do this without a federal govt. that regulates the same people they would be competing with. This is a complete and utter falacy if people think this will lower the costs of healthcare insurance, it will lead to a bloated system where the FICA deduction is much higher to pay for this "public option" as well as year end tax on those who have employee sponsored healthcare plans. I don't believe anyone denies the need to reform healthcare. I do think though that the ways to go about it are what is at issue.

Two of your choices involve federal money. Once again, "universal" health care WILL NOT pass, so you need to stop thinking in that direction. The latest compendium of proposals are described here, none of which has majority support.

Democrats to Begin Scaling Back Costly Health Care Proposals - Political News - FOXNews.com

 

[MaggieMae]

I won't give up on a public plan this year. The President was very strong today in his support of a public plan.
He said, "Why would it drive private insurance out of business?" he asked rhetorically, pointing out that the industry repeatedly argues that private insurance is the best and the government can't run anything.
He said the administration's position is a "public plan makes sense."

I have not yet heard what the President had to say. As to why would it drive private insurance out of business, the preliminary reports I read on this said that his plan would not allow any private insurance companies to offer any policies that offered the same services that the public plan offered meaning that if the public plan covered MRIs then no private insurance would be allowed to cover MRIs. That is utterly ridiculous.

Now, as I said, that was the preliminary reports about his health care plan from several months ago. Whether that part as stuck or not, I have no idea, but if it does stick then it would drive private insurance out of the market simply because they would be prevented by law from offering health coverage.

Immie

You have a lot of catching up to do, I'm afraid.

 

[MaggieMae]

I won't give up on a public plan this year. The President was very strong today in his support of a public plan.
He said, "Why would it drive private insurance out of business?" he asked rhetorically, pointing out that the industry repeatedly argues that private insurance is the best and the government can't run anything.
He said the administration's position is a "public plan makes sense."

I have not yet heard what the President had to say. As to why would it drive private insurance out of business, the preliminary reports I read on this said that his plan would not allow any private insurance companies to offer any policies that offered the same services that the public plan offered meaning that if the public plan covered MRIs then no private insurance would be allowed to cover MRIs. That is utterly ridiculous.

Now, as I said, that was the preliminary reports about his health care plan from several months ago. Whether that part as stuck or not, I have no idea, but if it does stick then it would drive private insurance out of the market simply because they would be prevented by law from offering health coverage.

Immie

I've not heard anything of the kind regarding treatments/tests. I've heard that there will be oversight on what test would be allowed under which conditions, but that is nothing new. If I want an MRI it's the Dr, not me that can get that ordered.

No, from what I can see, the question of the 'plan' and 'promise of not losing your preferred provider' has to do with costs, pure and simple. The gov't plan, just like Medicare/Medicaid will determine how much they'll pay. The private insurers don't have that ability. Thus the cost of gov't plan will be lower. Why would an employer pay higher premium? However, once most have jumped onto the bandwagon, the gov't can choose who will get care and who won't. 85 year old need an artificial limb due to diabetes? Not so much.

Private insurers most certainly DO have the capability of deciding what costs they will and will not pay. They use fee schedules, surgical schedules, charts detailing the average rate or charge for identical or similar services in a certain geographical area called "reasonable and customary" fees. Also, a private insurer would be quite apt to disallow an artificial limb for an 85-year old person. Buried deep in the fine print of most insurance policies (just as in those pesky credit card agreements), there can usually be found a catch-all clause ending in "...or for any reason whatsoever..."

 

[Navy1960]

I've made a ton of suggestions on healthcare on here, and well it's no secret where my political feelings lay. I am not supporter of a "public option" as it applies to the Federal Govt. . As it will be too costly, will lead to lower quality of care, and won't cover everyone. I do recognize a desperate need to lower the costs associated with healthcare and healthcare insurance and by doing so making it easier for those who want it and need to be able to access it. One of the best ways to do this, to allow for privately funded healthcare insurance co-ops that allow individuals, small business, and many others to come together to purchase group coverage. Other ways are promoting competetion through federal grants to those companies wishing to provide healthcare to low income individuals and familes. Still even more ways to do so would be to allow for Federal funding through state run Universal Health care programs that are voted on from state to state. There are many ways to do this without a federal govt. that regulates the same people they would be competing with. This is a complete and utter falacy if people think this will lower the costs of healthcare insurance, it will lead to a bloated system where the FICA deduction is much higher to pay for this "public option" as well as year end tax on those who have employee sponsored healthcare plans. I don't believe anyone denies the need to reform healthcare. I do think though that the ways to go about it are what is at issue.

Two of your choices involve federal money. Once again, "universal" health care WILL NOT pass, so you need to stop thinking in that direction. The latest compendium of proposals are described here, none of which has majority support.

Democrats to Begin Scaling Back Costly Health Care Proposals - Political News - FOXNews.com

I don't deny Maggie that 2 of my proposals involve Federal funding, however I also think that the funding would be more in line with what the Federal Govt. has the power to do and that is to regulate commerece and promote a business environment that allows for more competetion through incentive programs be that tax breaks whatever. I also think the revenue that is generated in the form of tax increases within the states that go back to the Fed. to pay for what I have proposed would end up costing a heck of a lot less and would be a heck of lot less intrusive than the so called "public option"

 

[MaggieMae]

I've made a ton of suggestions on healthcare on here, and well it's no secret where my political feelings lay. I am not supporter of a "public option" as it applies to the Federal Govt. . As it will be too costly, will lead to lower quality of care, and won't cover everyone. I do recognize a desperate need to lower the costs associated with healthcare and healthcare insurance and by doing so making it easier for those who want it and need to be able to access it. One of the best ways to do this, to allow for privately funded healthcare insurance co-ops that allow individuals, small business, and many others to come together to purchase group coverage. Other ways are promoting competetion through federal grants to those companies wishing to provide healthcare to low income individuals and familes. Still even more ways to do so would be to allow for Federal funding through state run Universal Health care programs that are voted on from state to state. There are many ways to do this without a federal govt. that regulates the same people they would be competing with. This is a complete and utter falacy if people think this will lower the costs of healthcare insurance, it will lead to a bloated system where the FICA deduction is much higher to pay for this "public option" as well as year end tax on those who have employee sponsored healthcare plans. I don't believe anyone denies the need to reform healthcare. I do think though that the ways to go about it are what is at issue.

Two of your choices involve federal money. Once again, "universal" health care WILL NOT pass, so you need to stop thinking in that direction. The latest compendium of proposals are described here, none of which has majority support.

Democrats to Begin Scaling Back Costly Health Care Proposals - Political News - FOXNews.com

I don't deny Maggie that 2 of my proposals involve Federal funding, however I also think that the funding would be more in line with what the Federal Govt. has the power to do and that is to regulate commerece and promote a business environment that allows for more competetion through incentive programs be that tax breaks whatever. I also think the revenue that is generated in the form of tax increases within the states that go back to the Fed. to pay for what I have proposed would end up costing a heck of a lot less and would be a heck of lot less intrusive than the so called "public option"

The last suggestion would simply involve expanding Medicaid, which operates on fixed grants to the states based upon historical and anticipated needs. The State of Vermont cut a deal with the federal government for a waiver of the fixed amount for five years in order to cover more uninsured caught in the crack between earning to much and too little. Vermont also has it's own new health care program, which will run a deficit for the first five years, so the thinking is that between the two, Vermonters will have no excuse for not staying healthy and the State won't go bankrupt doing health care. (Vermont has a Republican Governor and a Democratic Legislature, by the way, which worked this thing out without all the gnashing of teeth which has become the norm in Washington).

Vermont Global Commitment to Health

 

[Annie]

I have not yet heard what the President had to say. As to why would it drive private insurance out of business, the preliminary reports I read on this said that his plan would not allow any private insurance companies to offer any policies that offered the same services that the public plan offered meaning that if the public plan covered MRIs then no private insurance would be allowed to cover MRIs. That is utterly ridiculous.

Now, as I said, that was the preliminary reports about his health care plan from several months ago. Whether that part as stuck or not, I have no idea, but if it does stick then it would drive private insurance out of the market simply because they would be prevented by law from offering health coverage.

Immie

I've not heard anything of the kind regarding treatments/tests. I've heard that there will be oversight on what test would be allowed under which conditions, but that is nothing new. If I want an MRI it's the Dr, not me that can get that ordered.

No, from what I can see, the question of the 'plan' and 'promise of not losing your preferred provider' has to do with costs, pure and simple. The gov't plan, just like Medicare/Medicaid will determine how much they'll pay. The private insurers don't have that ability. Thus the cost of gov't plan will be lower. Why would an employer pay higher premium? However, once most have jumped onto the bandwagon, the gov't can choose who will get care and who won't. 85 year old need an artificial limb due to diabetes? Not so much.

Private insurers most certainly DO have the capability of deciding what costs they will and will not pay. They use fee schedules, surgical schedules, charts detailing the average rate or charge for identical or similar services in a certain geographical area called "reasonable and customary" fees. Also, a private insurer would be quite apt to disallow an artificial limb for an 85-year old person. Buried deep in the fine print of most insurance policies (just as in those pesky credit card agreements), there can usually be found a catch-all clause ending in "...or for any reason whatsoever..."

Great! Give us some links for that, MM! Thank you!

 

[Navy1960]

Two of your choices involve federal money. Once again, "universal" health care WILL NOT pass, so you need to stop thinking in that direction. The latest compendium of proposals are described here, none of which has majority support.

Democrats to Begin Scaling Back Costly Health Care Proposals - Political News - FOXNews.com

I don't deny Maggie that 2 of my proposals involve Federal funding, however I also think that the funding would be more in line with what the Federal Govt. has the power to do and that is to regulate commerece and promote a business environment that allows for more competetion through incentive programs be that tax breaks whatever. I also think the revenue that is generated in the form of tax increases within the states that go back to the Fed. to pay for what I have proposed would end up costing a heck of a lot less and would be a heck of lot less intrusive than the so called "public option"

The last suggestion would simply involve expanding Medicaid, which operates on fixed grants to the states based upon historical and anticipated needs. The State of Vermont cut a deal with the federal government for a waiver of the fixed amount for five years in order to cover more uninsured caught in the crack between earning to much and too little. Vermont also has it's own new health care program, which will run a deficit for the first five years, so the thinking is that between the two, Vermonters will have no excuse for not staying healthy and the State won't go bankrupt doing health care. (Vermont has a Republican Governor and a Democratic Legislature, by the way, which worked this thing out without all the gnashing of teeth which has become the norm in Washington).

Vermont Global Commitment to Health

Actually Maggie, the message here is this, "it's a state issue" see the 10th Amendment. So what Vt. does, and Mass. does is a result of what the voters will of those states say it is. Now the grants that I am talking about are more in line with what John McCain had proposed in his campaign as a tax credit. This grant will go to offset the cost of paying for the state sponsored Universal care provided the voters in your state or mine decide they want it. If a state for example wants to go the co-op route I say let them, because in the end it's a state matter. Where the Fed. comes in is as a regulatory body to provide the proper environments for these programs to thrive. Let me give you another example, take my state for example, lets say here that 99% of the people wanted Universal healthcare, then it would seem to me why direct that call for healthcare to a Federal level when you need it a local level. and constitutionally speaking it's supposed to be there anyway.

 

[MaggieMae]

I've not heard anything of the kind regarding treatments/tests. I've heard that there will be oversight on what test would be allowed under which conditions, but that is nothing new. If I want an MRI it's the Dr, not me that can get that ordered.

No, from what I can see, the question of the 'plan' and 'promise of not losing your preferred provider' has to do with costs, pure and simple. The gov't plan, just like Medicare/Medicaid will determine how much they'll pay. The private insurers don't have that ability. Thus the cost of gov't plan will be lower. Why would an employer pay higher premium? However, once most have jumped onto the bandwagon, the gov't can choose who will get care and who won't. 85 year old need an artificial limb due to diabetes? Not so much.

Private insurers most certainly DO have the capability of deciding what costs they will and will not pay. They use fee schedules, surgical schedules, charts detailing the average rate or charge for identical or similar services in a certain geographical area called "reasonable and customary" fees. Also, a private insurer would be quite apt to disallow an artificial limb for an 85-year old person. Buried deep in the fine print of most insurance policies (just as in those pesky credit card agreements), there can usually be found a catch-all clause ending in "...or for any reason whatsoever..."

Great! Give us some links for that, MM! Thank you!

Health Insurance Fee Schedules

or you can Google "fees and schedules used by medical profession" where you'll find a slew of articles or state guidelines.

 

[MaggieMae]

I don't deny Maggie that 2 of my proposals involve Federal funding, however I also think that the funding would be more in line with what the Federal Govt. has the power to do and that is to regulate commerece and promote a business environment that allows for more competetion through incentive programs be that tax breaks whatever. I also think the revenue that is generated in the form of tax increases within the states that go back to the Fed. to pay for what I have proposed would end up costing a heck of a lot less and would be a heck of lot less intrusive than the so called "public option"

The last suggestion would simply involve expanding Medicaid, which operates on fixed grants to the states based upon historical and anticipated needs. The State of Vermont cut a deal with the federal government for a waiver of the fixed amount for five years in order to cover more uninsured caught in the crack between earning to much and too little. Vermont also has it's own new health care program, which will run a deficit for the first five years, so the thinking is that between the two, Vermonters will have no excuse for not staying healthy and the State won't go bankrupt doing health care. (Vermont has a Republican Governor and a Democratic Legislature, by the way, which worked this thing out without all the gnashing of teeth which has become the norm in Washington).

Vermont Global Commitment to Health

Actually Maggie, the message here is this, "it's a state issue" see the 10th Amendment. So what Vt. does, and Mass. does is a result of what the voters will of those states say it is. Now the grants that I am talking about are more in line with what John McCain had proposed in his campaign as a tax credit. This grant will go to offset the cost of paying for the state sponsored Universal care provided the voters in your state or mine decide they want it. If a state for example wants to go the co-op route I say let them, because in the end it's a state matter. Where the Fed. comes in is as a regulatory body to provide the proper environments for these programs to thrive. Let me give you another example, take my state for example, lets say here that 99% of the people wanted Universal healthcare, then it would seem to me why direct that call for healthcare to a Federal level when you need it a local level. and constitutionally speaking it's supposed to be there anyway.

McCain's proposal wasn't new, and it certainly wasn't without major kinks. It would work for some people but not for those who need health insurance the most.

FactCheck.org: McCain's $5,000 Promise

 

[Midnight Marauder]

HOWEVER, that said, here's my problem with the Republican politicians who have consistently just said NO to any health care reform other than their own well-worn proposals. The major talking heads this past weekend (McCain, Graham, and the others parroting each other) have been once more been beating the drum for getting us into another conflict over Iran by demanding that Obama "denounce" the Iranian leadership and ally himself with the moderates . What they have been saying sounds eerily familiar to the subtle justifications for invading Iraq, which ultimately happened.

No one's calling for or even considering military action in Iran, no matter how many times the far-left says it's so, and no matter how many times their mindless minions out there regurgitate it.

Regime change in Iraq was made the law of the land, by Bill Clinton's pen in 1998. It was the first ever law on our books that required that we remove a foreign leader. "The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998."

Again, NO ONE is even considering an invasion of Iran. NO ONE is suggesting it, talking about it, or even thinks it.

So, your strawman fails.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I'd like to hear what his ideas are as well.

I will say that I am opposed to anything that puts the government in sole control of either our health care or our health insurance, but hearing his ideas can't hurt. Somebody needs to come up with an idea because we are in a health care crisis. Personally, I think if both sides were to sit down and discuss the issue then something could be done, but they are only interested in beating each other up as in every other issue and nothing will ever get done.

Immie

Why? What's the difference is between pouring our existing health-care dollars (money spent by us and by our employers) into a public bureaucracy to track premiums and payments, and pouring our existing health-care dollars into a myriad of private bureaucracies to track our premiums and payments, other than the profits being skimmed straight off the top by the private ones, and their ability to use market confusion to deny coverage that's been paid for?

Before answering, bear in mind our own Social Security*, is running at an efficiency of under 1% of premiums collected spent for the costs for all overhead, including office rent**, wages, equipment, etc. (That's less than 1 penny from every dollar collected in FICA taxes.)

* Social Security: a Public Bureaucracy used for tracking employee & employer paid premiums (paid in the form of FICA taxes) and the disability and retirement benefits they provide for. (You know, kind of like insurance!)

** Note that many, many Americans have an office within 25 miles, most have an office within 50 miles and virtually everyone has one within 100 miles, if there is business that can't be handled over the phone or 'net.

P.S. - How many Medicare customers have you heard bitch about service compared to customers of any given private bureaucracy?

How many companies are as smart as Microsoft and Boeing and became 'self insured' by booting the private bureaucracies out and hiring a couple of clerks to track their own company run insurance pool?

It is time that We, The People became 'self insured' for health-care.

-Joe