Classe move to China

Its not a victim mentality to point out the fact that the playing field is not level when it comes to healthcare. People who need medical attention are NOT consumers. They have no choice in the matter. One reading of our Constitution, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" can easily be read as access to health care without going bankrupt. A basic human right which other countries have no problem in recognizing.

Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, LBJ and a host of other presidents from both sides of the political spectrum advocated for some kind of single payer, universal health care. All it would do is lower costs (premiums) and increase coverage. I really don't see the downside to all of this. There are many ways to do it with or without insurance companies but the common theme in any plan would be taking the profit out of the equation. Even the most xenophobic right wingers in Western Europe blanch as the idea of loosing universal health care. They consider it a right.

Its all how you look at it and what you've been conditioned to believe.

Nonoise,

I have 25 employees. I pay all of our full-time employees health insurance and that's with the most expensive PPO, not a much cheaper HMO.

I personally don't want the government dictating my healthcare to me and I suspect my employees may agree. All we need to do to dramatically bring the cost of health care down is to allow competition across state lines. Competition is the great equalizer.

I think the answer would be a government plan that only covers catastrophic care. No one seems to mention that. You get cancer or demetia, the government plan kicks in. You break your leg playing ball, that's your problem. Children runny noses, your problem etc..... that would lower the cost. If you make it totally free, it will be abused as it is and has been the world over.

Fiddler,

You're a generous man and your employees are lucky to have someone like you.
Right now we have insurance hacks denying coverage. Policies that appear to cover you but don't. An 'agent of the state' wouldn't go to work in drab grey overalls and a Mao cap with the express purpose of replicating and exceeding the denial rate that insurance companies do now. Coverage would expand. Doctors would still make killer salaries. You could go to any doctor you want which would make them better healers otherwise you'd go somewhere else.

As for state lines, all that would do it cause a giant sucking sound as all the insurers would go to the state with the least restrictive operating requirements. They would be able to screw someone from the other side of the country without fear of legal reprisals.

There is a middle ground that would work. The sky wouldn't fall, the earth wouldn't open up, mass hysteria wouldn't ensue. It would be so quite as to make one wonder what all the fuss was about.

Check out Wendell Potter, former corporate vice president of communications for CIGNA and what he has to say about the business he used to work for. It will give you pause.

Rok2id - That would be step in the right direction and I agree there should be some deductible but in many countries it is completely free and it works just fine being much more effective than our health care. I hear often this mantra "Our system is the best in the world" but there is no data to back it up. It is insurance companies propaganda to protect their interest. The truth is that in the world of business doctor has no incentives to make you healthy. He makes more money when you're sick. Objective is just wrong. I went few times to doctor who doesn't recognize me, writes things in the file during conversation but next time doesn't even read it. Elderly people who cannot afford medication go to Canada with prescriptions to buy exactly the same brand for 1/2 the cost getting it confiscated at the border on the way back. It is shame, and please do not come with horse analogies. When horse is dead unmounting it seems to be the best strategy.