One people. One need. One pool of money. One payer. One low price. Couldn't be simpler.

As for those wanting to continue for-profit heath care, ask this: if we go single payer, where can they go and still make a kiling? This country is the last stand for the morally bankrupt.

what would we do without Jon Stewart and Stephen Cobert? I was dissappointed with Saturday Night Live last week. There's so much more to talk about other than the things in progress that haven't been accomplished yet. Aren't they even gonna touch the teabaggers, (so to speak)?. There's so much funny stuff that's not being used. I guess it takes a while to work it's way into our culture. So, thanks Daily Show and Cobert Report.

You might want to do one small edit there - tsunamis are caused by earthquakes (nothing to do with climate). You should probably say "hurricanes" or "typhoons" instead.

Gee thanks Gillian. I have another question though.  You wrote:

"Now, what about recycling, that bastion of environmentalists everywhere? A good idea, yes? Well, not always. In US healthcare recycling is sometimes ill-advised. For instance, nurses reusing catheter tubing and saline bags during cardiac stress tests: really bad idea. A nurse at Broward County Medical Center in Florida has been doing just that since 2004, involving potentially 1,851 patients who now need to be tested for blood-borne diseases. In Las Vegas, a clinic that routinely reused syringes potentially infected 40,000 patients over 2 years. That’s a lot of patients."

Did this happen because of a flawed healthcare policy or because two people, the nurse in Broward Co. and the doc in Vegas failed to comply with existing federal regulations and CDC guidelines?????

These are simply assertions without support: tens of thousands, tens of millions--- you make it sound as if people are lined up at the hospital entrance bleeding on the street. Again, insurance or no insurance I still haven't heard of a single person being denied healthcare delivery, treatment if you will. Healthcare insurance is like any other kind of insurance -- its risk based.

As is business. Life is not risk free and never will be. Once more if there is a problem with health insurance, fix the problem don't create more. The federal government is the least efficient business there is. I will also suggest that you ask people who currently have government sponsored health insurance what their experience has been with respect covered service and payment for pre-existing conditions. I think you'll find that it ain't so rosy.

Jeez Larry, you just aren't up on the latest. Could it be cuz we watch different news stations? First of all, a story comes out daily about someone being denied coverage after paying thier premiums. One lady went blind so her daughters could have health coverage. A baby was denied because he was too over weight. The baby was only 4 months old? The mother was stressing out, was she supposed to starve him? Put him on a diet? Then there's the little girl who's too skinny. There's the lady that had a c-section and they called it a pre-existing condition. Heck, even rape is considered a pre-existing condition. So, I have a question for you. Who was it again that runs their businesses more efficiently? They spend 30% of the insurance dollar on overhead and bonuses. Medicare runs on 3% overhead. Yes, it is does need to be reformed, and so does medicine, so that outcomes are rewarded. Don't make us give you the news.

To All,

Please consider signing my health care petition at  http://healthcare.change.org/actions/view/help_ask_questions_about_national_healthcare_that_need_answers

If any of you are unable to read it please let me know, because I don't know if my inability to read it (other than in edit mode) is because I'm the originator or for some other reason. 

And if you won't sign if please extend me the courtesy of telling me why.

Thank you, Diane

From my petition you can see that I'm serious about helping to resove this problem, so I feel that I have some credibility to ask a few questions.  

Can anyone answer this for me? If there is a public option for Medicare, will the federal government be subsidizing those choosing it as they do Medicare now?  And if that is true - the federal government will be subsidizing the public option - is that not just a way of fooling ourselves into thinking health care is cheaper this way but in reality it goes into the long term public debt for others to pay in the future? 

Thank you Gillian. That does seem like the source. 

He says, "The top ten health insurance companies made $8.2755 billion last year and they stand to make more when medical costs go up."  Is this profit or revenue collected? If its profit, is it net profit or gross profit? How many people were insured?   Without more information it just jerks at our emotions.  For example, using a total of 10M people insured by the 10 largest health insurance companies, this is an average annual premium of only $827.55. 

He says, "Approximately 45,000 people die each year because they lack health insurance."  I still don't understand how this is possible, because it is against the law for a hospital to turn away a sick person. Medical insurance is to prevent spending all your resources on medical bills - to prevent bankruptcy.  But the lack of it does prevent anyone from receiving healthcare, especially life saving healthcare that a hospital can provide. Are the deaths related to lack of prescription drug insurance? If so the drugs must be very expensive? If so the federal government could solve this problem without taking over all of healthcare because prescription drugs are a small part of overall healthcare.

He says, "The average annual premium for employer-sponsored health insurance is $13,375 for family coverage." Okay, What are the employers asking the families to be covered for?  Hospital charges? Physicians fees? Surgeons fees? Drugs? Dental? Eye Glasses? Abortions? Cosmetic surgery? How much coverage is needed vs how much is not?  How much of costa are due to defensive medicine? What are the deductibles? How many of the insured get really sick that require these premiums?  Without more information its just a big number that seems unreasonable on the surface but may not be based on the requested coverage. (Are these economy plans or luxury plans?)

He says, "This is why we must ignore pressure from the health care lobby, now spending $1.4 million a day spinning its story in Capitol Hill offices (that’s chump change when you consider the top ten health insurance companies saw profits soar 426 percent between 2000 and 2007)."

I don't see how this is possible, given the chart I posted that shows the sector with profits of about 3%, and the fact that 426% is a 'huge' amount of profit.  Example. If the companies only insured a total of a million people and they collectively made a profit of 8.2755 billion, then the average annual profit for each customer in 2000 was 8.2755 B / (426 x 1M) = $19.43/customer/year.  Does that make sense for just 9 years ago? And I don't see any balance sheets or P&L statements posted by anyone showing this huge amount of money - where is the proof of this claim?

Please don't get me wrong. I was a democrat for many years before making the observation that I was really a compassionate conservative.  I have a health care petition posted on this site, and I firmly believe in helping people that deserve to be helped.  Its just that I like to analyze facts before make a decision. 

Correction: .. But the lack of it does not prevent anyone from receiving healthcare ..

Comment - Statements about profit increases have always annoyed me because they are so misleading.  For example, if an insurance company decides to make little or no profit then circumstances throw profit in their face by companies demanding luxury insurance plans, which need to be priced for the worst case that don't materialize who is too blame? My point is that we must understand the process, and if the company continues to demand the luxury plan then they have to continue to pay the luxury prices for any given year of prices the insurer must cover the possible luxury costs.

Or if the profit is $1 in year one, and 1,000% the next year, then the increase in dollars is only $9 for a total profit of $10. (A change from $1 to $2 is 100% increase in profit to a total profit is 200%. A change from $1 to $5 is a 400% increase in profit to a total profit of 500%.)

Here's a concept that I've been thinking about and want too share for feedback. 

What do you think of the idea that the government does not create any news laws with regard to managing health care (no government takeover) BUT

A) agrees to pay ALL bills for 'needed heath care' for everyone who signs up for a National ID Card (NIC), because no one should go without food and water (we already have food stamps and Medicaid for the poor) or needed health care. Lets call it what it is - national health care - NHC. But there are NO rules, No Controls, NO death panels, NO restrictions.  Doctors bill NHC. Hospitals bill NHC. Etc. Then let the government, or its Quality Assurance representative (QAR), deal with all the over-billing, fraud, corruption, etc that they should be dealing with anyway.

B) To pay for NHC the government creates a consumption tax (CTax) large enough to breakeven. They could start with a 1% CTax on all goods and services (Note 1), exempting all food (with a unit cost of less than $25) and all clothing (with a unit cost of less than $100).  'Everything else' is taxed 1% when sold, to pay for NHC. I personally like the idea that states collect the CTax and pay the NHC bills in their states and be allowed to keep any savings they create by being the QAR and use it to pay for state Medicaid and other related services.

Note 1: A 1% CTax on the GDP of about $12T would yield about $1T to pay for NHC, and could be adjusted based on experience.  

Many will argue that this puts health care insurance companies out of business. So what. They served a need only for people and companies that could afford it, and they didn't find a way to help the rest. They had their chance. Now its too late. And as Gillian said paying for health care insurance is a waste of money given we all need it anyway. It's almost like buying insurance for future purchases of food and water. Now the government, companies, families, and individuals don't need to but it and can use the money for other purposes and the CTax.

The reason I like CTax method is that it could be expanded to do away with paying all incomes taxes (and the IRS) and the NIC could be used to eliminate voter fraud.)

What do you think?