If the private, for-profit insurance companies offered a good product at a good price, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. They’ve failed us. And now they’re paying the price of that failure.

Cover everyone and do so at a reasonable price. If you can do that, you deserve to thrive. If you cheat people, lie about your policies, refuse to cover sick people and manipulate things in order to maximize gain at the expense of our health, you don’t deserve to be protected by congressmen you’ve bought off with your lobbyists; who, ironically, are paid for by our premiums!

If we do not fix private insurance first, it will not survive a public option. The only people who could afford it would be big corporate and government officials, not us small business men. Ultimately, a lone public option where there is no competition is the worst of all options.

I’m defending a Public Option; voluntary and available to all citizens as an alternative to the monopoly of the private, for-profit insurance companies. As a small business owner, I consider a public option essential to the future of my business and my family.

However, I don’t think you can credibly say that France, Canada, and England are “bankrupt”. Factually speaking, they are in much better shape than the United States. No industrialized country is in nearly as much debt as we are. We are the bankrupt ones—not them.

Yes, I appreciate the civil tone and the friendly banter as well. Best to you!

My argument is not that Canada is good or England is great. If I thought their systems were perfect, I’d be there right now arguing with someone who has bad teeth and a funny accent. My point is that their costs are not lower than ours because of socialized medicine; they are lower because of external factors.

I see that you are the definitive answer on health care costs, so I’ll progress. In addition to good for health care, tort reform is good for the business environment and the economy. Big business takes advantage of their power and capital to pressure small business and entrepreneurs in the form of frivolous suites far more than people do. Or at least it is on a larger scale. My family business has first hand experience with the leader in our industry bullying our company and its new product. Loser pays probably would not have stopped their tactics, but it would have given us back the capital we needed to get a jump start. Eight years later we are debt free with the exception of our manufacturing facility. My argument is that the sign of a healthy economy is small business, not big business or government. Tort reform would aid small business.

The other reason our insurance costs are so high are because it is not health insurance any more, it is health care. Insurance is intended to cover unexpected and catastrophic events, not everyday events like the common cold, cuts and nose bleeds. If insurance plans only covered large events like cancer, broken parts, etc. costs would go down. Plus, if I had to pay to see the doctor about this rash I have and he quotes me some crazy amount, I’m going to call the doctor down the street. I still have choices, and more shopping means the market gets back to where it is supposed to be.

Imagine your car insurance covering the cost of fuel, oil changes, car washes, detailing, tires, etc. It would encourage you to drive more often, change oil and tires more frequently (like every 3,000 miles instead of the factory recommended 5,000 miles for oil) and have your car cleaned every week by some government employee. If you are a traveling sales person, I am paying into a pool for your fuel and maintenance. Government interference and regulation is what cause health insurance to move toward this idea of health care. How can you possibly think that costs will go down on our health costs if government gets involved? Yes, it will be available to more people able to join a program, but I would also argue that almost no one gets turned away from care right now. If they do, they go to the hospital down the road.

Lastly, I truly believe that our drugs are expensive in US because of a couple things.
1. Insurance pays for them not us – so we abuse it. Our insurance goes up and the drug price goes up because the market is tampered with (no value shoppers).
2. Americans pay the Research and Development for these drugs, not Canada or the rest of the world. After we cover the R & D, every other country they sell to is gravy, so to speak.

If government gets involved, the incentive to perform R & D will diminish. The idea of socialized medicine sounds great, but the reality is profit and competition drives production and service. I do think that our system is flawed, but adopting systems that are bankrupting in other countries like France, Canada, and England is not the solution. By the way, thanks for the friendly banter.

Interesting you would cite these two countries. How convenient. Are you aware that people don’t pay one dime out of pocket for full, comprehensive health care in both Canada and the United Kingdom? Are you in favor of that too?

Are you citing the Canadian and British systems as examples when you assume they’ll support your arguments and ignoring them when they’ll contradict it?

Insofar as “tort reform” is concerned, the very phrase is part of a propaganda campaign pushed by big insurance companies that refuse to take responsibility when they screw up and cause the death or serious injury of a patient.

Don’t argue with me about the costs of lawsuits adding to the costs of healthcare: go argue with the data which says that only 1 to 3 percent of medical costs are due to lawsuits.

The doctors and their levels of compensation are not the problem. The problem is the private, for-profit insurance companies which routinely deny care, increase premiums, and sell crappy policies with fine print that screws the people who buy them. They see health care as a way to make money, not as a way of taking care of human beings who need it.

You think you have “good health care coverage”? Wait until you, or a member of your family becomes seriously ill or injured (which I sincerely hope never happens to you or anyone). Then, and only then, will you realize what a sham and a cruel joke your “coverage” really is. Don’t believe me? Just wait and see…

Consider most of it from what source! And what is “it?”

The only political propaganda is our lawyers telling us how tort reform will hurt the little man, or the poor man, when in fact it is quite the opposite. The only persons being hurt by tort reform are the lawyers themselves (they lose business) and people and corporations with money to throw at a situation (corporate bullies). How can it be right for someone, who the court deems wrong, to not compensate their victim for the likely ridiculous lawsuit they created? I might add that many of the frivolous laws are never paid for by the prosecutor/plaintiff anyway, but instead these cases are performed on contingency where the lawyer gets paid a percentage of the “winnings” (otherwise known as the ambulance chaser). If they lose the lawyer doesn’t get paid anyway.

Why would you think these lawyers would cease to pick up these cases, the odds haven’t changed for them, only for the plaintiff. If someone has a serious case, they are still going to pursue compensation, but they will be sure to have a solid case before entering the court room. If they don’t have a solid case, it’s probably not serious enough to file suit.

Canada currently has Tort Reform called “Loser Pays” and England has their version known as “English Rule.” These countries have litigation costs per person that are less than half of persons in the US. Also propaganda is a statement like “most studies show that it would only reduce our premiums by 2 or 3 percent. This isn’t very significant.” Everything I have read indicates that up to 40% of healthcare costs go toward legal expenses. Keep in mind that our insurance companies have legal fees and that we pay to cover the doctors’ outrageous liability insurance. The doctors aren’t going to just take money out of their savings; they are going to pass it on to their customers (the middle class).

Lastly, why do we want to hold our doctors to such a high level of perfection? I have never met a doctor who joined their profession to make horrendous amounts of money. They do it for the rewards associated with helping people. For a lot less education, they could become a lawyer! I think you should be personally liable for every mistake you make at work. Oh, that’s right, socialist don’t work.

In those cases, the incompetent or uncaring medical professionals deserve to get sued. And they should be forced to pay accordingly.

“Tort Reform” would allow these incompetents to literally kill people and never be held accountable. And, even a more mild version of “Tort Reform” would allow big time, $500 per hour lawyers to decimate the people who try and sue their incompetent clients.

However, even if all medical related lawsuits went away, most studies show that it would only reduce our premiums by 2 or 3 percent. This isn’t very significant.

This “Tort Reform” talk is largely political propaganda. I consider most of it from the source.

It’s irresponsible for this writer to imply that this is being seriously considered by President Obama. Either he’s unaware of the actual facts or he’s just trying to scare people to serve a biased political agenda.

Problem solved

Yes, there is opportunity here in America. I am here because America did not have enough of the technical skill that I posess and was recruited by an American company nearly 24 years ago. When you are young, as I was when I came here I really didn’t need healthcare. Now that I am getting up in years that is more of an issue as is with many Americans.

You are right this is the land of the free and you are still free to pay for your insurance if you wish. The single payer system is not free as some people think. Payroll deductions are taken to cover costs. It seems a little unfair when you are young, as I did, to pay for something I didn’t need but now looking back the cost was minimal compared to what I have to pay just to see a doctor now.

When the single payer system was first proposed in England there was great oposition to it by the conservatives (Republicans). The labor party (Democrats) pushed it through and the people of England are glad of it. Sure there are people who are dissatisfied with it. No system is perfect but on the whole it is a better way to go than with greedy insurance companies having the power of yes or no on who and what should be covered based on an ability to pay. With single payer, everone is covered no matter what is wrong with you.

First of all, I’d settle for one fact. It’s easy to sit here in the US and claim the French and Netherlands have a system marked by “convenience, quality, and affordability.” Your response has no information given about how they achieved such a magnificent health care system. How does their system differ from those of England and Canada that allows them to achieve this success? In typical Democratic fashion, rather than provide an actual plan with laid out suggestions, it’s easier to generalize and talk of grand plans than to show the actual route from point A to point B.

Our politicians have focused on Canada and England. How do you anticipate the United States enjoy the claimed successes of France and the Netherlands?

One a side note, I prefer a cold rum and coke to kool aid. That seems a little childish.

LOOKING OUTSIDE OUR BORDERS…. About a month ago, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) told Fox News that the health care status quo in the United States is “the best health care system the world has ever known.”

It was a strikingly foolish thing to say, but it was also a reminder that as far as conservatives are concerned, health care systems outside the United States aren’t just awful, they’re dystopian nightmares. While some Americans are able to enjoy “the best health care system the world has ever known,” the right tells us, non-Americans are forced to endure rationing, life-threatening wait times, soul-crushing bureaucracies, and sub-standard medical care. (That many of these problems already plague the U.S. system is an inconvenient detail, usually ignored.)

Jonathan Cohn sets the record straight. While most conservative complaints focus on England and Canada, which rely on socialized medicine and single payer, it’s not the comparable model for U.S. reform.

Last year, I had the opportunity to spend time researching two of these countries: France and the Netherlands. Neither country gets the attention that Canada and England do. That might be because English isn’t their language. Or it might be because they don’t fit the negative stereotypes of life in countries where government is more directly involved in medical care.

Over the course of a month, I spoke to just about everybody I could find who might know something about these healthcare systems: Elected officials, industry leaders, scholars — plus, of course, doctors and patients. And sure enough, I heard some complaints. Dutch doctors, for example, thought they had too much paperwork. French public health experts thought patients with chronic disease weren’t getting the kind of sustained, coordinated medical care that they needed.

But in the course of a few dozen lengthy interviews, not once did I encounter an interview subject who wanted to trade places with an American. And it was easy enough to see why. People in these countries were getting precisely what most Americans say they want: Timely, quality care. Physicians felt free to practice medicine the way they wanted; companies got to concentrate on their lines of business, rather than develop expertise in managing health benefits. But, in contrast with the US, everybody had insurance. The papers weren’t filled with stories of people going bankrupt or skipping medical care because they couldn’t afford to pay their bills. And they did all this while paying substantially less, overall, than we do.

The people in these countries have a system marked by “convenience, quality, and affordability.” How horrific.

Kevin Drum added, “Now, the fact that the French spend about half what we do doesn’t mean that we’d cut our costs in half if we adopted a French-style system. We wouldn’t… But what it does mean is that if we adopted something close to their system, we could certainly achieve high-quality 100% basic coverage — with the ability to purchase extra coverage for anyone who wants it — for no more than we spend now and possibly a bit less. We won’t, of course, because too many people are still convinced that healthcare in the United States is better than it is in France — or anywhere else. It’s not. It’s worse and more expensive.”

Democrats have the White House, a 60-seat majority in the Senate, a 255-seat majority in the House, and a popular mandate. If they really want “the best health care system the world has ever known,” they can start making it happen right now.

Since when do we have a right to health care?
Since when are we entitled?

This is the land of THE free, not the land of free.

If you want socialistic healthcare, why are you here in America? Probably because there is opportunity, which is quickly dwindling as we reduce incentives. We still have ideas here in America, but we have it produced somewhere else. Thanks for listening to my rant.

My suggestions:
1. Tort reform: Loser pays! This will stop frivolous law suits
2. High deductible – if you go in for the common cold, you need to pay for the visit. If you go in for brain surgery, you pay the deductible and the insurance company pays the rest. A hypochondriac in my office is constantly going to the doctor for random, non issue events like the sky is falling (she only pays the $20 co-pay). She’s also taking advantage of prescription drugs, where she typically pays only a $10 co-pay. Health insurance was intended to be like car insurance where it only covers the big, unexpected events. This is why it’s so expensive, and because every one takes advantage of it. Those of us who are responsible would save enough money on the insurance to more than cover our deductible.
3. Demand that people pay for the services if they use them without insurance. Even if they don’t pay the whole thing, expect something from them. Washing dishes, community service, Debters prison. Anyone who uses our medical services, cannot pay, and is not legal gets deported immediately if all three issues apply. If they are productive and pay for the services, I don’t have a problem with them being here.

Any other capitalistic suggestions are welcomed.