I did get Paul R.'s satire immediately... but I think it's far too complicated. Owning people, for example. It's sooo a century-and-a-half ago. Besides, could that amendment be so easily overlooked? And then who would be in charge of the pricing structure, and the loans that might be involved in such purchases? Would these transactions be somehow tax-deductible? ...or only the interest on any loans? Bottom line, though, is that I really can't think of any major banking house that I'd be willing to trust with such a delicate undertaking. Have you noticed how bad they all are at PR lately?

Frankly, I'm surprised that Paul R. was not more forward thinking... I always thought he was more cutting edge, unless, perhaps, that trip back in time was intended to represent the GOP's and the Blue Dogs' probable place in history. In that case, I withdraw my imputation.

A more forward-thinking notion, imho, would be to remove many of the restrictions from organ "donation"... so that poor people who happen to have an extra organ or two that they can spare might sell them to richer folks... who do not.

Most of us are born with two kidneys, even though efficiency dictates that we really need only one. Who cares about all of that redundancy-stuff, just because our kidneys are more vulnerable than other organs to injury, and because, unlike the liver, a kidney supposedly cannot regenerate itself? Once those nephrons are dead, are they really, really dead for good?

Still, a parent who's trying to send a child to community college might be tempted to part with a kidney, in order to cover that tuition and not have the child encumbered with those outrageous college tuition loans that have hampered so many deserving young people in their quest to achieve the American Dream™.

Certainly, the health care industry has had much more (successful) experience in setting prices for specific procedures involving specific body parts than bankers have for whole human beings. With that pricing structure already in place, would it be unseemly to consider a percentage... something like a finder's fee. What do you think? Honestly.

And I don't think we need limit ourselves to a spare kidney or a part of a liver, either. How many of us really need both of our eyes? Unless one is an artist, or a photographer, or drives a semi for a living, depth perception is not really mandatory, is it?

And I DO see a role in this for Hillary Clinton... there has been some speculation lately about the role she and her husband may play in going on the road to sell the WH's plan (whatever it really is, since we don't yet know). Clinton, after all, as SecDef must have some interest in the amount of medical tourism that has sent so many of our citizens overseas for operations that could as easily be performed on our own shores, if only they did not cost so much to perform here. Not to mention the nursing care, rehab specialties, etc., that must also suffer here when those services are provided overseas. Economics are no longer divorced, we have finally learned, from Foreign Policy.

I suspect that I must be nearly out of characters by now, but I hope that when next you communicate with Paul R., you will mention my suggestion. Perhaps he would even rewrite that post?

More than anything else, it's vital that this dynamic change. Such a change -- a shift in Beltway power dynamics -- would be far more consequential even than the specific health care policy issues at stake in this debate. --Glenn Greenwald

No way does the power structure of the status quo wish to cede any power to a bunch of impassioned reformers! After all, just consider the possible consequences!

Left up to doctors, BigPharma, insurers, providers, etc., etc., and even including this "new" [sic] administration...

we would all be on a round of prescription medications that would not be doing much to improve our health, even if allaying a few symptoms, while creating a bunch of new ones... and the only beneficiaries would be the health [sic] care industry, in particular, BigPharma.

We probably can't have much impact on this bill, but we can find other ways to improve our health that do not rely on a medical system that is mostly ineffective when it comes to treating chronic conditions.

I don't always agree with Andrew Weil, but he does make a reasonable case for an alternative scenario:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weil-md/why-i-am-a-conservative-o_b_259869.html

and

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weil-md

Even though I work in one of the top-notch medical centers in the country, I mostly use alternative & holistic means when possible. I do have a primary care physician, but he is outside of the network... and he understands that I don't want a bunch of pills. He's very helpful, though, in making suggestions, requesting blood tests, etc., and helping me monitor my progress. And he does not practice the 15-minute medicine that has taken over in this country.