They keep raising our rates, giving us less, and cutting more from the doctors fees.

Now that we supposedly no longer torture people and are moving in the general direction of a nation of laws, maybe we can go all the way and join the civilized world. Since all first-world countries have single-payer health care for all, adopting it would be the signal that we have come in from the cold, dark place that thirty years of Reaganism put us.

Only the costs of administering the plan ........ people would still pay insurance premiums but they would be much lower.

Administration costs for private insurance (middlemen we don't need who place not one bandaid on one person) due to executive salaries and stockholder interests ...... 30% to 35% of total health care costs.

Medicare administration costs ....... less than 5%.

A single payer non-profit structure administered by the govt would immediately save 1/3 of health care costs.

A health care reform plan is a joke anyway if it is not a single-payer plan, similar to what England and other European countries offer with their national health care. If it is not like the best health care plans of Europe, then it is just a money jackpot gift to the insurance industry. If health care ends up being like the car insurance mandatory rip-off system, with its constant cost increases on people who have safe driving records, then we need to say "No thanks!" Look to Europe for the model, or let's not waste any more time with it.

"Cost control" means care rationing, plain and simple, and I'm fed up with it. Most workers have expansive (and likewise expensive) insurance paid for partly or in full by their employers, and it needs to stay that way. The only REFORM we need is to bring this awesome, superior care to all Americans, not just those with decent jobs.

We practically have more MRI machines per metro area than the UK has in their entire country--and that's a GOOD THING, not "waste" to be slashed by care-denying, blood-sucking bean counters.

Cancer survival rates are 50% higher in the U.S. vs in Europe. Infant survival rates are higher here too, despite the false "infant mortality" statistics bandied about by lying single-payer advocates. (European countries, unlike the U.S., don't count babies that die shortly after birth as live births. What part of "live" don't they understand?)

Vote NO on cost cutting!

...the main question people should ask is whether the health care system should be consider a public service, similar to firefighting or police services or as a for-profit business model, such as when you go see an accountant or a lawyer. Once we answer this question, we can then decide how to make such system as cost efficient as possible.

For most developed countries, health care is considered a social service. This way you ensure that everyone is covered and will not go bankrupt in the event of an extreme illness or disability. As everyone knows, this is not the case here in the US. When I see a friend of mine who has rotten teeth because she cannot seek medical attention, we definitely have a major collective problem. Notwithstanding the fact that her health is in jeopardy, she is currently unemployable. Who would hire such a person? If you include other cases like this (because I am sure there are many more), this can also have a large negative effect on the economic prosperity of a country. Providing health care that is dependent upon employment makes the work force less flexible and less efficient.

http://open.salon.com/blog/kanuk/2009/03/11/health_care_comparison_universal_versus_us-style_systems

http://open.salon.com/blog/kanuk/2009/03/29/health_care_comparison_universal_vs_us_-_part_ii

Great question. And the answer is resolutely NO! Public services are all pass/fail, where "good enough" is sufficient. Firefighters can be "good enough" and put fires out. Bureaucrats can be "good enough" to collect taxes and shuffle papers. We hope that cops are better than good enough, but there are frankly more Chief Wiggums than ace detectives.

When your life or livelihood is at stake, you don't want "good enough," you want the best. And you get the best by paying extra. Medicine needs to feed both the wallets and the egos of the doctors, so they strive to do the best.

Look where we already have public/private competition: schools. We don't want our health care dumbed down the way public schools are dumbed down!

All of Western Europe has universal health coverage, but they don't all have single payer. Germany, France, Switzerland and the Netherlands all have universal health coverage that isn't single payer - it's a mix of public and private.

What is so wrong about the United State's of America joining the rest of the civilized world?

Screw the private firms. They have been screwing us. All of us. Even Fat Cats like you know who.

Hum... I assume that when a person is severely injured in a car crash (i.e., his or life is at stake) and the EMS is on its way, which falls under the management of the firefighting department, this person will get a quicker response time if the EMS service is privatized rather than if it is a public service, right? Perhaps the EMS crew of a private company would be willing to drive faster than those poor city workers, who are less motivated to help people who may be in a very dire or life threatening situation. We should conduct a survey of firefighter departments across the US and ask them whether a privatized service will offer a faster response time to the scene of a motor vehicle collision (or fire), since lives may be at stake. If you can prove this, I am with you.

As a side note, I find this so funny that I decided to cut and paste your response and e-mail it to my neighbor who is the head of the firefighting department of a 150,000+ city.

@KayWWW: see the last part of the second link (in my previous comment). I discussed the public/private system as the best or most feasible option.