If you think a government run "single-payor" system would be better than the current health care system then you haven't been paying attention to the news lately. Would you really want a government run system that produces the kind of "care" the government provides in VA hospitals ? If you insist on a government takeover of health care, then that's the kind of "care" you'll be getting. Who will liberal trial lawyers sue then ? Hillary ? Though not perfect, our current system allows consumers freedom of choice. If you don't like your current health insurance policy you can change it. Try doing that under a "single payor" system. You can't. Is that what you really want ? Let's stop kidding ourselves that a government run healthcare system will be perfect, and let's stop pretending it will be free, too. Your taxes will pay for it, and you won't be able to change them if you think they're too high, either. Why is it that free thinking liberals always seem to want to give up their freedoms ?

Ron Bridges, let's dispense with the irresponsible claims and the unethical spreading of unfounded fear. Shall we? Here's a Q&A for you: H.R. 676: Answering the Question and Debunking the Myths: 1.) We already spend so much on healthcare, so we can’t afford a universal healthcare system that covers everyone: This is false. In fact, H.R. 676 spends $56 billion less each year, while covering all Americans with fully comprehensive medical benefits. The reason is because, as a for-profit industry, the current private system wastes 31% of the $2.2 trillion spent each year on non-healthcare related costs such as, marketing/advertising, billing and paperwork, and corporate profit. H.R. 676 eliminates profit and is thus able to operate at a much more efficient 3% administration cost, saving roughly $600 billion a year. Utilizing this money is what makes true universal healthcare for all Americans possible. 2.) I’ve read about other countries with healthcare systems similar to H.R. 676 that have experienced rationing. Wouldn’t H.R. 676 lead to rationing: No. There are quite a few things to be said about rationing, but first and foremost, H.R. 676 is designed to eliminate rationing. Though other countries operating with a single payer healthcare system have sometimes experienced rationing, they devote only half as much money towards the system. And that is the critical point involved here. Under H.R. 676, the U.S. will spend almost twice as much as other countries and get the best care because of it. Under the current private system, the U.S. also spends twice as much as any other country, yet ranks consistently lower on vital indicators of health, such as infant mortality, average lifespan, and rates of terminal illness like heart disease and diabetes. As stated above, this is because the current system wastes more than 1/3 of all healthcare spending on non-healthcare related costs. To paraphrase Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, for other countries the problem is money, for the U.S. it is the system. Furthermore, it must be pointed out that the current private system is already effectively rationing access to healthcare. Same-day access to primary-care physicians in the U.S. is 33%, significantly lower than other single payers like the U.K. at 41%, Australia at 54%, and New Zealand at 60%. Poll after poll reports many Americans admitting to going without needed care because of out-of-pocket expenses like co-pays and deductibles. Moreover, 46 million Americans are uninsured and another 50 million are considered underinsured. 3.) H.R. 676 is socialized medicine: This is false. H.R. 676 is not socialized medicine. It is a publicly financed, privately delivered healthcare system. This means that the government is the sole provider of insurance, paying the healthcare providers (physicians, nurses etc.) who remain private. So, under H.R. 676 you have free choice of healthcare provider. There is no out-of-network. 4.) I wouldn’t want my benefits to drop and also, I wouldn’t want to change physicians: Under H.R. 676 the large majority of Americans’ benefits would dramatically increase. This is fully comprehensive coverage including office visits, hospitalization, long term care, all prescription medications, and even dental, vision, and mental health services. You will not have to change physicians unless you choose to. You have free choice of provider. Further, when changing jobs or place of employment, under the current private system people often must change physicians or even go without coverage temporarily. However, under H.R. 676 coverage is not affected and patients can continue to see the same physician. 5.) Isn’t government control of our healthcare system going to lead to a much less efficient and more bureaucratic operation: No. In fact, the current private system is much more bureaucratic and much less efficient. Not only does the current system waste 1/3 of all spending, but it interferes in the patient-physician relationship, making doctors justify every test and procedure-while attempting to influence these decisions through financial penalties and incentives. Physicians have to hire administrators just to keep up with the excess of claims and administration. Insurance companies also invest in drug companies, so when covering medications they have corporate duty to cover these medications even if others are cheaper and/or more effective. When further considering the confusing mass of bills, E.O.B.’s, deductibles, co-pays and the up, down and in the middle communication of physicians to insurance companies, insurance companies back to physicians and then the patient’s to both, the current private system is one impressively bureaucratic system, indeed. H.R. 676 eliminates the administrative waste, patient billing, co-pays and deductibles, by funding the system directly through tax dollars. Further, H.R. 676 leaves the medical decisions to the physicians themselves, reviewing their performance regularly instead of directly interfering with the patient-physician relationship. 6.) Isn’t the market based competition of the current private based system the best way to control costs: Obviously not, since the costs of premiums rose 86% between 2000 and 2006; three times faster than inflation. The rise of income in the same period rose only 15%. Medical bankruptcies are up 2200% since 1981 and profits for the largest pharmaceutical companies hit $62 billion back in 2004. H.R. 676 addresses cost control immediately by cutting out the profit and wasteful administration of the private system. By being the sole insurer, the government will have the necessary influence to negotiate fair drug prices. Finally, the promotion of preventative medicine, which is virtually non-existent in the private based system, will control costs in the long term by reducing chronic diseases that require expensive treatment, such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes. 7.) Isn’t the reason that healthcare costs keep rising is that we are unhealthy as a country: Yes and no. First, through there are many factors to rising costs in healthcare, one important reason is poor health; with the consequent cost of treating chronic diseases. But, it is here again that the private system fails us. As a for-profit industry, there is no incentive to promote preventative medicine, the cost of such programs being immediate and the long-term financial dividends uncertain; uncertain because clients often switch coverage and companies. The fact is, not only do the private insurance companies rarely promote preventative medicine, they actually invest in industries that cause chronic illnesses. For instance, an insurer may invest in the tobacco industry. However, the “no” is that there are other important factors in the rapid rise of healthcare costs, not the least of which are corporate profit, poor administration, and the outrageous cost of medication. 8.) I’ve read that trial lawyers and malpractice suits are driving up healthcare costs: Yes and no. These do drive up costs, but only fractionally compared to the factors mentioned above, accounting for only 0.46% of our total healthcare spending. This is not the real problem. 9.) There seems to be a lot of factors involved in the high costs of healthcare. Can’t we just make reforms to the current system instead of changing over to another system: This is the critical point: no matter what reforms take place, keeping the for-profit, private insurance healthcare system requires wasting billions of dollars on non-healthcare costs. This system exists first and foremost to make money, not provide care. In fact, as a business it is in their best interest not to pay on claims, to deny claims whenever possible. As for-profit companies, they must use money to market themselves to prospective clients, they must hire administrators and marketers to do the job; factored in to every premium dollar. As for-profit companies they must profile clients and underwrite them, they must promote medications based upon money instead of efficacy. And they must generate billions in profit; billons which don’t go towards healthcare. Consider further that as for-profit companies they have a vested interest in not insuring the elderly or the sick because they are too “expensive”, that they pass off the chronically ill to government programs in the long run anyway. And consider their inability to control pharmaceutical prices. With these considerations, as well as those of above, it becomes evident that reform is not really an option. For, it is the for-profit system that is the problem.

The American health system is poor for those who can-not afford expensive health care insurence... And that stinks! cg

Thanks to parmenides08 - yes it was long but also very well-put. I'm one of the millions of uninsured: a college (ivy league!) graduate, full time freelance worker, tax payer, and new mother, who can't afford the premiums on private health insurance. On the other hand, my husband runs a small business that would be forced to close if he suddenly had to pay for health insurance for each one of his employees. He can barely pay the bills as it is. So it seems to me that the only system that would really work in terms of providing coverage and promoting entrepreneurship is one in which the government provides universal health care coverage. It would be paid for in taxes which means that your contribution would be a function of your income, and that is the only thing that makes sense. Finally, I can't believe McCain thinks some people actually don't want insurance!!!! They may not want to pay for it, but I have never ever met a person who would rather not be able to go to the doctor in time of need.

Ron Bridges’ arguments are specious and his rhetoric nothing but emotional claptrap that doesn’t truly deserve an intelligent rebuttal. But, depressingly, in today’s society his tactics are dangerously effective at swaying the gullible voter. So, I feel drawn to confront his deceptive diatribe. First, as a veteran, I can say with authority that the medical care I received in the Army was vastly better than the health care I now receive from the private medical facilities I’m forced to use by my HMO. The recent problems with the VA hospital in Virginia are not the standard in VA hospitals across the country, or even at that hospital. And, if you’ve truly been paying attention to the news you would’ve read or heard much about the miraculous medical advances the military medical establishment has made in surgical procedures, physical therapy and rehabilitation, and prosthetics. Advances so great that soldiers who would normally have been medically discharged are actually able to return to duty even after losing a limb. And, soldiers don’t even have to make a co-payment or worry about insurance caps or pay for procedures that aren’t covered by their insurance providers. Plus, the problems with VA hospitals are not due to mismanagement of care, but a woeful lack of funding (even with a war going on). Second, his argument about “who will liberal trial lawyers sue then?” doesn’t even make any sense. What does that mean? What point is he trying to make? The only thing the statement does is play off the distrust most of the public has concerning trial lawyers and possibly ratchet up the emotional tension. Thirdly, his statement “if you don’t like your current health insurance policy you can change it” is a bald-faced lie. The only access I have to insurance that I can even come close to affording is through my work and I have only two choices; an expensive HMO or and even more expensive PPO and they both force me to use medical facilities and care providers who are on their “preferred” list. Additionally, a true universal healthcare plan (a “single payer” system) would eliminate the expensive and extremely bureaucratic third party, for-profit insurance companies so his follow-up statement “try that [changing insurance policies] under a “single payor” system” is inane. The statement implies that a single-payer system would reduce your choices when in fact it would increase your range of choices of medical care and providers. Fourthly, his allusion to the idea that the universal healthcare proponents are saying that universal medical care will be perfect and free is preposterous. Of course it won’t be perfect, nothing is. And, of course we would have to raise taxes to pay for it but the increase in taxes would be offset by doing away with the insurance premiums. And, as parmenides8 posted in the Q&A on HR 676 (thank you parmenides8) taxes are based on income unlike current insurance premiums which are set by the insurance companies and don’t even consider level of income. Mr. Bridges’ tactic in using these statements is underhanded and subversive. By throwing out the false implication that the “single-payer” proponents are trying to foster untruths he tries to emotionally undermine the legitimacy of their arguments without actually having to have a rational and logical debate. His statement that “your taxes will pay for it, and you won’t be able to change them if you think they’re too high” is illogical (we have a representative form of government and we can reduce taxes when we want to; Bush’s tax cuts are a prime example) and does nothing but play off Americans’ fear of taxes to once again ratchet up the emotional tension. Lastly, his final sentence about liberals wanting to “give up their freedoms” is painfully ludicrous (particularly since it was the conservatives who pushed through the freedom restricting “Patriot” Act) and again tries to make an emotional implication that universal healthcare somehow gives up freedom without providing any supporting evidence. In all, Mr. Bridges provides no actual evidence, studies, analysis, or anything even remotely akin to rational thought to support his passionately held opinions. His post expertly uses emotionally charged statements to play off our natural fears, suspicions, and distrust of government to try to persuade us not to support the reform our broken medical care system desperately needs. Don’t fall for it.

Universal Single Payer Health Care is an idea whose time has come. The government has been supporting corporations over the rights of ordinary Americans. Our political power has been marginalized by the economic power corporations have amassed through the government's support. With 47 million without health insurance and 18,000 a year dieing for lack of health care it is time to eliminate the waste of the present system and expand Medicare to all Americans. Universal Single Payer Health Care is an idea whose time has come.

None of these proposals will solve the problems of the lack of affordable health care for people in this country. Canada, the U.K., and most of the developed countries in the world provide health care for all their citizens. Are we so backward that we can't figure out a way to provide single payer health care for all our people? Or are the corporations that now provide high cost insurance to a select few - just too greedy?

I just dont get it. executive, congress, senate spends billions it does not have for war,etc. and cannot help millions of its citizens have basic and affordable health care.

To Ron Bridges - You are clearly not well informed and I would ask you this. The US ranks #37 overall in the world for healthcare. All the top ranking countries of some form of single payer systems and NO PRIVATE INSURANCE putting profit before care. hmmmm. What does this tell you, Ron? Duh. Common sense would tell any rational person that these other systems must be doing something better. HELLO! And single payer is NOT goverment run healthcare. The delivery system remains private and people choose any doctor or hospital they want. YOU need to educate yourself instead of spouting off silly rhetoric and outright deceptions designed to keep people confused, afraid and big insurance in control of our health.

I was a devout and now a former Republicana voter who was going to vote for Hillary Clinton, but will not, as she and Obama have sold out and accepted money from the BIG PHARMA. I will, reluctantly vote Democratic. It will be Dennis Kucinich, if he the Demcractic nominee.

Bleh, who cares for health (all too complicated anyway, I leave it to docs) when we can instead concentrate on killing all those terrorrists. Hey, you suspicious looking dude over there, happen to be one of the bad guys too (glad I always carry at least two personal guns plus a knife with me to protect me and fellow Americans). Long live our beloved presidet Bush, long live the war on terror, no useless thoughts or money left for healthcare anymore...

Single payer makes sense Medicare which has a running cost of 3% seems the way to go. The Insurance companies, and the drug companies are squeezing the poor and middle class. The Republicans at least the ones that speak of universal health care have no real plan, it's same old, same old the market driven philosophy. It's not working, they do not represent change.

I know that the "devil is in the details" - but Tancredo seems to be on the right track. Sadly, I suspect that he is in favor of getting rid of only regulations that hamper the gatekeeper role, and limiting the ability for gatekeepers to squeeze money out of sick people. Eating properly and exercising are actively discouraged by drug companies who promote a "zero tolerance for discomfort" mentality and a "who has the time for exercise" mantra that promotes consumer oriented hedonism. Getting rid of the useless FDA and DEA and turning over drug education to a C. Everett Koop figure while turning over responsibility to drug safety to the FTC and a more easily accessible judicial system would be preferable to turning over the present system intact - but under taxpayer largesse. And considering the penchant for GOP deficit spending this would mean trillions in debt for our heirs and the destruction of our monetary system [actually a very good outcome: we have lots of things that need to be done and a lot of support for doing them - it's the control of money that gets in the way].

why do all these small country's have a better health care system then a BIG country like the USA? My brother, a US citizen, is married to a British subject and living in Wales and receives free, top notch, medical care any time he needs it it??? I was over there, one time, and received a free Flu shot and no questions asked. Had I needed more care I would have received it also. The care they receive over there is paid for by their taxes. Were the hell is our tax money going???

agree with poor plans for people without money who don't pay taxes. Re: pools, California has one for high-risk people, and it is impacted. so much for that. it really is often, "your money or your life."

Cool