Reduce doctor's costs with tort reform.
Offer to forgive student loans if they see medicare patients.

To Obama and Pelosi, the ones with the hammers, everything looks like a nail. If you think socialism is good, quit griping and get a job.

The real problem lies with the inefficiencies and the build up of our current medical system, it is so intergrated into our economy that any major change would have a large economic effect. So many industries are making so much money off of our healthcare. We try to justify this by saying how great our healthcare is, but as is stated in other comments, it is not. Our country was built on entreprenuers and they have played a miraculous role in our healthcare system. The problem is that at some point, they are taken over by large corporations that are motivated by stock price, which is not always in the best interest of the consumer. Our innovation does not come from these companies, they come from brilliant individuals who are driven for reasons other than profit.

Our main goal in America now should be in preventative medicine, which could easily be achieved cost efficiently with Physician Assistants and cost efficient access to routine procedures. I believe that many people put off known conditions due to costs until it becomes a large and very expensive problem.

The medical business is the only for profit business that very few people ask the cost and the providers pretty much have an open check book. When one loop hole is closed, 5 more show up. I think that the vast majority of providers are trying to do the right thing, but the system is so protected that there is an extreme amount of corruption and overbilling (justified as cost shifting). If we are proposing a government run insurance system to keep the insurance companies honest, then we should also have government run hospitals and providers to keep the private system honest. But as we have seen in the VA hospitals, this does not work and neither will the insurance system.

Right now we need jobs and heathcare, any major changes to the system could have many unintended consequences. We need to focus on removing the health pre-existing condition rate up system, bringing coverage to the uninsured, offering affordable coverage to the insured, and most importantly, transform our health care system. We can no longer afford for it to be used as a way to make large amounts of money on technoligies or systems that have been out there for many years.
When new technology is invented, yes they should make money. But at some point, there needs to be an open pricing system based on the cost to produce, not what they can negotiate or pad through cost shifting. People who want to become very wealthy, need to find another way, our system can not handle it and can be ethically opposed to moral and efficient patient care.

In conclusion, we should pass legislation requiring insurance companies to offer coverage to everyone with rates based on geographic areas, require individuals and employers to have coverage or face penalties (subsidies will be necessary – some will have higher taxes but most should be offset by lower insurance premiums), we need to give Americans incentives to control costs through healthy lifestyles and taking an active role in reducing the cost of their health care, and the cost of health care needs to be based on a realistic cost of treatment without all the smoke and mirrors.

We still want to leave room for entreprenuism, but cut most of the bureaucratic inefficiencies. The problem is that the corporations that are making the most money, have the most influence through their campaign contributions and lobbying efforts. Alot of very tough decisions will have to be made to fix the system. But as has been said about why democracies eventually fail, either a few people have to suffer now or many will suffer in the future, and in a democracy, no one wants to be the group that suffers now and so problems keep getting put off until it overwhelms the system. With our aging population and unhealthy lifestyles, that day is not to far off, if something is not done soon.

Many small businesses have been keeping employees on, in spite of LOSING money, hoping things improve (this means they have no extra money for insurance premiums at ANY cost). If this bill passes, most of these sm. businesses will no longer be able to keep those employees and will cut back accordingly. More jobs will be lost so more people will be left without insurance. It's not a solution.

One solution is to stop the prescription drug companies from creating addicts who *think* they *need* certain drugs "to survive" when in fact they don't. Many of these companies are based outside the U.S. and do not even have a market in their own countries for the same drugs we are told "we must have."

The payroll limit for small business should be set at a higher dollar amount – probably at $500,000 because many small businesses with only 10 or so employees are paying this amount in payroll but have no profits and no way to afford additional business expenses unless they do across the board pay cuts. I'm assuming this will be the other thing that happens if the bill passes – people WILl be forced to take pay cuts or be terminated.

Obama does not understand economics and his advisors obviously do not seem to be living in reality. Small business is what was driving the U.S. economy.

Every kind of health care system in the world is "rationed" one way or another.
Our USA health system is rationed by "dollars".

So please, the real issue is: are those of us fortunate to have health care insurance willing to share with those USA "citizens" who don't have health care insurance ?

Note: I'm talking about USA citizens only……Mexico is gonna have to cover the illegals.

One of the great hidden stories is the success of Medicaid and Medicare in containing costs and limiting administrative expense. Compare what they spend on administration with the private sector, and cry.

The US spends more than twice as much of its GDP as any other developed nation to provide a lesser level of care to 85% of its population. Yes, if you have good insurance, or plenty of money, the care you can get is of the first rank. But an increasing number of people have neither.

Yes, government financed systems have their problems, and in the UK, for example (of which system I have a lifetime of experience,) waiting lists can be lengthy, depending on where you live, for elective surgery – but you will get it. Here the decision as to whether or not you get treatment rests in the hands of an insurance company bureaucrat. And waiting lists can be longer than in the UK. A friend of mine recently waited two months to see a doctor about a damaged knee. On a visit home to Scotland recently I wanted a check-up, and it took me all of two days to get the appointment.

The private sector doesn't have to be dismantled here but it needs regulation. Charges should be based on a standardized risk profile which is based on the average risk across the entire population. That basically means that all policies would cost the same regardless of age or pre-existing conditions. Then the insurance companies would have to compete on efficiency and service, which can only be good for the user community.

Let's dump this silly term 'socialized medicine'. It makes no sense. No-one talks about 'socialized policing' or 'socialized education' or 'socialized roads' or 'socialized space travel' but these are all publicly funded activities, where everyone contributes and the results serve us all.

Taxes, folks, pay for services. I hear a lot of complaints about high taxes, but I never hear anyone say no to state or federal aid when a storm causes damage or similar. It is all part of the same concept – in a civilized society we pay taxes to provide for the services which that society needs. Some people need them at one stage of their life, others at another, and a few need society's help all their lives because of a birth condition or whatever.

Seems to me that health care is one of those basic rights in a civilized society, the the current US system fails miserably to provide that.

Private care could also exist providing you pay extra on your own or via your employer

HOw did we come so far so fast – from JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your county."? We are now enfranchising our most non-prductive citizens and considering enfranchising millions of people who are here illegally.

By eliminating the primary prosperity enging in America – its ambtious. We spent billions on the "Great Society" and our public assistance roles (and the government bureaucracy that feeds from it have swollen.

The aim is to eliminate the self-determination of the states and localities and engorge an already engorged federal government.

Find another (private) way for health reform. We're out of Trillions of dollars which will lead to running low on the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution.

Tim Redmond

Here's another flash. The politicians have succeded in getting you to buy into the myth. Private enterprise works just fine when the government does not get involved. The financial crisis would have been avoided if our government would have left the regulatory laws alone that were in place. Instead they muddled in the market, (becasue of huge money being lobbyed by the financial industry)and changed the very laws that allowed the banks to mix banking with brokerages and we are paying for it dearly. That is not private enterprises fault, it is the fault of YOUR GOVERNMENT.
If we have the government involved in our heatlhcare we are going to create another huge entitlement program that we cannot afford. This along with the fact that the government running healthcare will be a disaster just like every other governement agency. If a public program is instituted then we will all lose our employer healthcare period. Companies will not pay for a public plan at the same time while bearing the expense of a private plan. It will be a business decision. The government knows this. It is all part of the plan to control this through a single payer system. That will leave us all with a horrible government run health system that will be vastly, inefficient, bloated, and rationed. Those who don't have healthcare will be happy they have something and those who had good healthcare will kiss it goodbye. You will only get the care if they decide that it is "necessary". If not be prepaired to stomach the consequences because it might very well cost you your life one day.
There are plenty of opportunities to reform our current system.

The private sector can cover where the Govt does not. Not everyone needs specialized care, if you take care of you health!

Why can't we just have a hybrid system? Why are you so extreme?!

Insurance comment:
A.http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/02/business/02insure.html?scp=1&sq=harvard%20medical%20bankruptcy%20study&st=cse

Pharma comment:
1.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/health/10heart.html?scp=3&sq=jupiter%20heart%20study&st=cse

2.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/health/18well.html?scp=5&sq=jupiter%20heart%20study&st=cse

3.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/health/01heart.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=jupiter%20heart%20study&st=cse

And may I need remind you, how much have you paid in self-employment taxes over the years for social security? The current estimates indicate that if the social security system isn't fixed – by the year 2041 your estimated social payment will be reduced 22%, and this is just estimate. Don't believe me – read the fine print in your Social Security Statement. If I told you that if you paid in 10,000 a year to guarantee a income payment in your retirement years, and oh by the way you had to pay this in every year no matter what or you will be fined and penalized and maybe sent to jail, but in return I guaranteed you a monthly income. But then somehow as an insurance carrier, I failed – you would sue me and win. And if you die before you reach the payout time, I get to keep the money not your beneficiaries, you buy this from me. Probably not, but welcome to the wonderful world of social security.

Another social program our wonderful government has created for us.

I do not mean to be rude, but again, I feel the an education process needs to be provided so that people can make an educated decision about whats the best solution for all, without shaking down the tax payer and the small business owner.

They created a medical monopoly, a non-competitive situation for the usual financial reasons.
No monopoly wants competition.

Starting today, they could allow Nurses, Physician Assistants,
and Pharmacists to diagnose and prescribe for the most common simple ailments.

They could create Medical Technicians that require minimal training to handle routine procedures.

Doctors and Surgeons can be on call and paid more for the non-routine, complex cases.

Why not increase the supply of doctors or make the distribution of basic medical services more of a commodity?

I understand your explanation but you are forgetting a huge part concerning premiums and utilization.

Since the 1960s the majority of people have been covered by employer sponsored plans. Realize that this is a business TAX DEDUCTION to the employer. This (or any b'ness tax deduction) by definition means it is at least partially subsidized by the public. The gov needs its money. They are either getting from b'ness taxes or people taxes. In this case the small or large business owner is getting part of their premiums paid by me. The same goes for pharmaceutical usage.

Prescription drugs are mostly purchased under a persons health care drug plan. The same plans that are once again a business tax deduction. Moreover, when you look at the top five drugs (2 statins, 2 dyspepsias, and an anti-anxiety) they do nothing for health, other the treat symptoms that are secondary to inactivity and poor diet.

Q: Why are my taxes going to employers providing HC plans that do not promote health and mostly treat symptoms?

Reduce the tax deductibility of the plans and employers will make their employees either exercise and eat better otherwise their insurance utilization will go up and hence their premiums. Health people should equal less utilization and lower premiums.