When B.T. Barnum uttered his famous line, I gotta believe he was envisioning the same types of people that would want Palin as our POTUS.

The problem with the current system is there's no way for insurance companies to underwrite education awareness. You have to have been diagnosed with diabetes before they will pay for you to enroll in classes instructing sufferers on what foods to avoid. Many, for example, have no idea how much sugar tomatoes contain.

Beyond that, many people are unaware of how unhealthy fast food is for them. The inputs are heavily subsidized through farm supports for corn and hence one has to be middle income to eat a sound diet.

Let me add one more thing. Rather than a 'single payer', I would much rather see the Federal Government use our tax dollars to provide direct health care services, as we currently due through the VA, than through a 'single payer' system like medicare. I bet that would really get to the cost of health care and it would certainly give those who can't afford it health care. There is no reason the government can't establish clinics and hospitals and hire doctors and nurses, just like it already does through the military. Why couldn't we more easily expand that function to get health care to those who don't have it (for whatever reason)?

http://www.towleroad.com/2009/06/camille-paglia-gay-activists-childish-for-demanding-rights.html

That is a problem. However, Safeway has an interesting system. They give employees a rebate on their insurance premiums for progress in wieght control, cholestoral reduction, triglyseride (sp?) reduction, and a host of other markers and provide education and access to doctors to educate workers in that direction. I bet they were initially afraid to go down that road for fear of some discrimination claim or claim of vilating some other government requirement. but apparently it is having a bi impact.

This dis not going to be solved by 'single payer'. It is going to be solve by people who have a real cost incentive to do so, like employers who have to pay for health insurance they provide or employees who can earn cheeper premiums.

Is that accurate? I understand that some isurers pay for exercise classes, healh club utilization, etc? They certainly underwrite cholesteral, blood sugar, and other screenings. Certainly they could underwrite consultations in these directions, couldn't they? Am I poorly informed here?

The "Single Payer" in the equation is the government. It's the single source doing financing. You go into see a doctor, present your Medicare for All (there will be some other name for it) card. They (doctors) bill the Single Payer. Meaning, the government.

100% non-profit financing. Everyone is covered. Everyone is covered from the first dollar on. Our tax dollars fund it.

As for the savings. I explained that to you. Medicare right now has an overhead of less than 3%. The best, most efficient private insurance companies come in at 30%. Most are much higher.

Immediately, we save roughly 30% on the deal, and it will be more, because . . . as I mentioned . . . Medicare now handles the segment of the population most in need of care. Once it's Medicare for all, the costs will be spread and will include healthy people that virtually never require action from that fund.

It will also, as you note, have virtual monopoly power to drive costs down. The costs of our medicine are extravagant, for instance. We pay several times more for the same exact medicines. That's a big reason why we pay twice as much for health care overall, even though we don't cover roughly 50 million of our citizens. The other reason is listed above. Because we have a parasitic middleman in between us and our doctors and hospitals.

And THEY would save a ton of money if we go Single Payer, too. Because doctors and hospitals are drowning in red tape and paperwork, just dealing with hundreds of different insurers, their different rules and classifications, and their need to deny coverage in order to make profits. The U.S. government picks up the tab right now on a large chunk of the people insurance companies deny coverage to. They do that now. Medicare for all would see savings in that as well.

There are several ways to go, as far as paying for this. Right now, your FICA tax pays for Medicare and Social Security. But it's capped at roughly 100K. If we lift that ceiling and do away with it, then we can fund Medicare for everyone for generations. Right now the tax is regressive. It's not even a neutral tax. If you make 100K a year, FICA tax is assessed on 100% of your wages. If you make 1 million a year, it's assessed on just 10%. If you make 10 million, it's 1% and so on. Lift the ceiling, make it fair, and we can cover everyone.

Another obvious benefit: Business would not longer be on the hook for health care. They could pay workers better salaries instead, and/or invest in R and D, and/or lower prices, etc. They would instantly become more competitive across the globe, because MOST of the West has universal coverage and it's not employer based for the most part.

Your ideas for government clinics are interesting. Something to look into as well . . . .

Who would be eligible for the free government clinics?

Are you saying just for those who can't afford health insurance?

That wouldn't help the people who go bankrupt WITH insurance.

As I mentioned, 62% of all personal bankruptcy is due to medical costs, and 78% of those cases were for people WITH insurance.

Out of pocket costs crushed them.

If a person has an extended stay in the hospital, with any serious treatment, they can spend tens of thousands out of pocket. Families across the country go under, lose their houses, even though they have middle class jobs and private insurance through their jobs.

And what about the people who lose their jobs? In this recession, we've been losing half a million jobs a month FOR months. It would tens of thousands of government clinics to cover all of those people.

Single Payer is much more efficient. It doesn't require much in the way of new bureaucracy. In fact, the government could end Medicaid, SCHIP and all other health cares programs and roll them into Medicare for all.

Also, government clinics, unless everyone is eligible for care, wouldn't help businesses. They'd still cover their employees. Single Payer offers them a way out from that burden.

It's a win/win/win situation. The only people that lose are the insurance execs who makes 100 million a year, and I have zero sympathy for them. They've gouged customers and kicked too many people off the rolls (recission) to have earned any sympathy. It's the best possible solution for the vast, vast majority of Americans. Like, 99% of us.