That reason may well be loss of job. I saw a relative recently who works for a private sector company which has laid off half its work force. As part of the termination package, the company health and benefits rep will come to your home to meet with you and your family, since the primary breadwinner typically has dependents on his/her plan, to discuss how long you will be covered under the company plan and to recommend comparable plans for individual families.

Sarah Palin may discover, after she leaves her post, that state employee coverage is the gold standard in health care. Ironically, a form of socialism which she has decried. I have a colleage who, while her primary employer is Uncle Sam, teaches enough classes at the local state university campus to qualify for their coverage, which includes dental care for dependents. That alone has a monetary value which far exceeds the remuneration (both of her boys have had braces).

People do need to be pro-active in maintaining their own health. But we also need to question why the government balks at extending health care coverage to everyone while, at the same time, subsidizing food products filled with corn syrup. Cattle are now fattened on corn. This makes beef cheaper at the supermarket, but the price is paid in ever escalating health care costs from preventable diseases.

we should have single-payer oil, too. and single-payer steel, and cars, and high tech, and toys, and housing, and food.

It will all be paid for with taxes!

Health care is different. How many sectors of the economy have private insurance as middlemen?

Do you have to pay insurance companies on top of paying for food? Do you pay an insurance company AND the gas station? How about toys, when you buy them? Do you have to write a check to Toys R Us AND your Toy insurance company?

Heath care is different.

There is no "slippery slope" there, if that's what you're implying.

Single Payer is a better, more efficient, cheaper way of financing health care. Why NOT choose the better, more efficient, cheaper alternative?

I have to admit that I am somewhat perplexed by the irrational line of reasoning being used to explain away the rash of blunders made by Palin ever since she was selected by McCain to be his running mate.  The explanation goes as follows:

"Sarah Palin cannot possibly be as ignorant, inarticulate, and foolish as she appears to be.  Therefore, she must actually be quite brilliant, and the rest of us are simply too stupid to realize how brilliant she is."

Sorry, but that's just a load of disingenuous rhetoric composed of two parts spin-doctoring and one part psycho-babble.

So, you are saying that the bureaucracy would only add 3% over the actual cost of pure health care delivery? I think that's hard to believe, but ok. IF that is such a good deal, why is Medicare the biggest catastrophic time bomb that both parties say it is. That does not seem to be anybody preferred model. But, ok.

You say we pay more for drugs than countries that supress the price below development cost. That is true, but no one in those countries develops even 20% of the innovation in drugs and medical techniques that we do here. They just buy our companies. The Divinci robot was not invented in Europe. You can't just look at the surface. Of course we can just mandate lower cost. These other systems work because we are the world's safety valve. For example, we are providing the aids drugs in Africa and Asia. They didn't develop those drugs, but they require us to give them to them for free, or almost free.

Do you think people are not leaving California as we speak? Of course, those who live on the state won't but those who are paying for it will. And then, those that remain will say that California is such an asset to the nation as a whole, that we should all bale out California, whether we live in Montana or Kentucky, and then, not having to worry, California will just keep on spending and spending dollars that they don't have and don't earn. But, that's ok. California is cool.

Your whole argument is that we can take the whole US healthcare system and turn it over to Medicare and it will cost 30% less than it does today, we will have the same level of innovation we do today, and have better quality care to boot. and cover everyone for free.

I will take that bet.

It seems that for the past year, all of Paglia's columns for salon.com can be summed up as following: Palin great-anyone who fails to see that is an elitist, talk radio good-Rush and co. appeal to the "real America", Obama and the Dems not good.

Really, Camille, find some new topics.

Actually, I'm saying we would save more than 30%. Much more. I'm saying that's the minimum, just based on overhead costs between the two financing systems.

And remember, that's all I'm talking about with Single Payer. It's not the health care delivery system. It's the FINANCING of that system at issue.

The only reason Medicare is a problem in the future is funding. That has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the system itself. It just means we don't have the right funding mechanisms in place. Which I also explained. Again, your FICA taxes support both Medicare and Social Security, but they're capped. That cap is currently slightly above 100K, and rises little by little each year.

No earnings above the 100K mark are taxed under FICA. So, logically, that means the vast majority of wealth in America is not subject to FICA tax. Lift the ceiling entirely, tax all earnings, and we can fund Medicare for everyone, for generations, and probably have enough left over to lower the FICA rates (6.2% for SS; 1.45% for Medicare).

As for innovation. Innovation exists in countries with Single Payer. Their corporations do just fine. Contrary to our own inflated opinion about ourselves, America is not the only place that invents things. In many sectors, we lag behind. Big Pharma produces new drugs in dozens of countries around the world. Now, it may help that America is the dumping ground for price gouging. That perhaps gives them a bit more wiggle room. But I'm not talking about Medicare for all crushing Big Pharma. I'm talking about them stopping the gouging. At worst, that might result in an exec going from a salary of 100 million per year, to a measly 95 million. I know it will be tough on the exec and his or her family. They may have to eat at McDonalds more often. But, somehow, I think they'll get by.

Bottom line, "innovation" won't be harmed one iota. Medicare for all wouldn't be out for blood, or to crush businesses. It would just want to keep them honest. They would still make immense profits. Perhaps just not as immense as they used to.

I'm far more worried about the 50 million without any health care, and the 18,000 Americans who die each year because they don't have coverage. I truly don't give a shit about the fat cat execs who might have to drop a little in salary. I also care a hell of a lot more about the people who go bankrupt even with insurance, due to out of pocket costs, copays and premiums, etc.

Single Payer is not only the smartest, most efficient and cheapest way to fund American health care, it's the more "moral".