"You sound like Newt Gingrich." Thanks.

"So please explain, as you see it, who is competing with whom to drop prices? And how would that competition take place? "

Sure thing. You see, I grew up in the 60s and during that time, most people paid cash for their healthcare. Since doctors would have to compete with each other for business, some actually dropped their prices to get customers, same as any other business. Now, with the current health insurance the way it is, doctors don't compete at all except with insurance companies. I propose to give people accounts that they control and so they can shop for the best doctor at the least price.

"That is just not how people "shop" for their medical necessities. Imagine being in the ER with a broken leg or a heart attack. Going shopping, really?"

Yes really. Because the ER will take you and you will have to pay the cost, that is true. But so would your insurance company now, regardless of which ER you're in. Now, barring emergency medical care, you can look around for a doctor you like at the price you can afford.

"I'd add health care FINANCING to that mix."

Ok...and would you agree that government health care financing would include allowing people to determine which doctors to see and how the money should be spent in their government insured system?

"I'd also stop the privatization of what once were public sector things. Again, like the military. The military should do its own logistics, security, food prep and distribution, laundry, etc. It's cheaper, more efficient, and saves taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars."

I concur here. But then after Desert Storm, the military was severely cut back during the 1990s because everyone assumed that since the Cold War was over and that we did so well in the desert, we really didn't need all those people and if we ever did, we'd only need them on a very temporary basis. The lesson, I hope, was learned that we DO need a standing military...at ALL times.

Wow! Just WOW!

I've rarely seen it put so succiently as that - OR as well!

You are, of course, absolutely correct on BOTH sides. That is, of course, unfortunate, but still an absolute truth.

Well Said!

Obama hiding the current fiscal report tells me it can't be good.

Look, the biggest thing the President has to do during a fiancial crisis is to keep people calm so they won't make a bad situation worse by pulling all their money out of the system. That has NOT been done and things WILL get worse because people are scared! That is just a fact.

And when things get better, because people can only be afraid so long, I expect massive inflation due to all the money being printed at this time to pay for the stimulus.

I pray to God I'm wrong...but that is what I am expecting for this year AND next year myself.

"Single Payer would have nothing to do with choosing your doctor. It's just the source for payment. It's where doctors and hospitals would send their bills, instead of sending them to a bunch of private insurers."

Ah yes, assuming all doctors and hospitals accept the government insurance. And would the doctors and hospitals be FORCED to accept this insurance, or would they have a choice? And would this insurance control how much for each procedure or whatever they could charge?

"Go anywhere in the country, hand them that card, and they bill the Single Payer. Again, you'd actually have great freedom of choice in that system."

True...ASSUMING you FORCE every doctor, pharmacist and hospital to accept the government insurance.

"Plus, no out of pocket costs, no deductibles, and if you lose your job, you don't have to mortgage your house."

Ah yes, that's true...but then given the tax base required to finance this idea, you probably wouldn't be able to afford a house anyway.

"With insurance being tied to our jobs, and jobs being cut by the hundreds of thousands each month, bankruptcies and worse are going to escalate."

Of course if you take the insurance away from the job, then that's a non-issue isn't it...unless of course you don't have a job because the high taxes caused the business you work at to close. You couldn't afford groceries without a job, but you sure would have health insurance, wouldn't you.

Ok...let's play:

1. California ranks 17th among states in tax revenue as a percentage of income according to the California Budget Project

(http://www.cbp.org/pdfs/2009/0902_Californias_Tax_System.pdf, page 18 but the whole thing is worth reading)

I suggest you look at the fiscal year page 18 was determined: 2005-2006.

This is a more closer indicator for 2008:

http://www.dof.ca.gov/finance_bulletins/2008/december/

2. "But the reality is that California loses very few jobs to other states. Business relocations are highly visible when they happen but are a misleading guide to the state's economic performance. Businesses rarely move out of or into California, and on balance, the state loses just 11,000 jobs a year. That's just .06 percent of the state's 18 million jobs. Far more jobs are gained or lost because businesses launch, expand, contract and close."

-- Jed Kolko, Public Policy Institute of California, opinion letter to the San Francisco Chronicle, May 2009 (http://www.ppic.org/main/commentary.asp?i=948, full PPIC study on business relocation at http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=710)

As for job losses in California here's what's happening now:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-071809-fi-california_jobless-g,0,6242337.graphic

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-caljobs18-2009jul18,0,6076386.story

Totally logical and completely expected. Specter turned his back on the people who put him into office. I would be FAR more amazed if he WASN'T losing to Toomey!

Go Toomey!