I think (hope) that we can at least agree the current Health Care and Insurance system needs reform. It is clearly not working (over 10% of the population uninsured, dramatically escalating costs, etc.). If we can't all agree on that, then this debate isn't worth having. But I'm fairly confident that we do agree here, so I will proceed under that assumption.

What system are you referring to? There is no ‘System’. There is a collection of companies and doctors engaged in enterprise. The only ‘system’ out there is a regulatory system that prevents the free market from creating the best possible collection of companies and doctors engaged in enterprise. It’s the regulatory system that needs reform, not any insurance or health care system, which doesn’t exist. And the #1 reform the regulatory system needs, is allowing COMPETITION by removing the barriers preventing purchasing of insurance across state lines. But that never even enters the Liberal’s mind, since that would reduce government control. The issues that Liberals think need reform would be reformed if there was competition. Hospitals hide their rates. Why? Cause they have no incentive to publish them. They are not in competition with other hospitals when it comes to the patient. The patient is a third party, since he’s not paying the bill. The hospital need only deal with the insurance companies and only a few of them at that.

And once again we experience Liberal Tactic #1: Start off with Lies. 10% of the population without insurance is a lie of omission.

http://keithhennessey.com/2009/04/09/how-many-uninsured-people-need-addi...

10.6 U.S. citizens without insurance (not 47 million):

* with income below 300% of poverty;
* not on or eligible for a taxpayer-subsidized health insurance program;
* and not a childless adult between age 18 and 34.

That’s 3%, not 10%. But I understand. See, a lot of the so called uninsured are actually eligible for existing government programs. But since these systems are so horrible (both application and management) that they don’t even enter into the equation.

Actually, that's not true. What I said was: "HSAs are nice, but they can't be the only solution. What happens when you need a heart transplant, or a 20 yo has bad accident?" With an issue as complicated and varied as Health Care, there cannot be a one size fits all solution. I think HSA are a great idea, and an important part of any reform. I'm not sure if Zaius thinks they are all we need, but I definitely do not. One of the shortcomings with HSAs is similar to the shortcomings of the move away from defined benefit retirement plans towards 401(k) and IRAs. It is difficult for individuals to properly assess risk. Knowing which blend of mutual funds to invest your retirement account in is no easy task. Deciding how much to put away into a HSA is probably easier overall, but for many of Americans who live "paycheck to paycheck" or nearly so, the decision can be agonizing. (Thankfully, or maybe not, our FSA has a yearly cap which we easily exceed, so it's a no brainer to deposit the max each month.) Now, this difficultly doesn't kill the idea of HSAs, but I think it's Pollyanna-ish to assume that everyone can put away the correct amount into their HSA.

Liberals think everyone is an idiot, and need to be taken care of. And the sad thing is, their policies make people think they need the government to help them, thus creating a cycle of misery and dependence, just like we see in Detroit. (I’m still laughing about how they won’t accept any criticism of Liberalism unless the person doing the critique has a Liberal based solution.) They never see the free market as a collection of everyone making the decision that’s best for them. They can’t for one minute accept that the best possible outcome is when everyone votes with their wallet, because that’s a system where they don’t get to spend other people’s money.

Absolutely. I don't really see how this is debatable. The current private insurance system is proven ineffective as a safety net simply by the amount of people is doesn't insure. To be far, some of these uninsured are probably uninsured by choice (how much would these people put into their HSA I wonder), but most are uninsured either because they can't afford it, or they can, but the insurance companies won't sell to them. It's not much of a safety net if the holes in it are large enough to pass a pre-existing condition through.

There is no current private insurance system, only a regulatory system that props up near monopolies of a few big insurance companies in each state. And the state governments LOVE it this way, because a few big insurance companies can provide big campaign contributions out of their inflated profit margins. Plus, the individuals don’t get the tax break that companies get, because the State and Feds would get even less money from people.

And notice how the ONLY safety net is a Government one. They don’t even mention charities. Why? Because charities are not under their control. They can’t force people to give them money, and they can’t control who they help. Nor are they willing to get together with fellow Liberals and pull money out of their own pocket to help someone. There is nothing stopping them. Nothing. 10 of them could pool their resources and help a single family, but instead they complain about how people are resisting the government doing something. Supposedly, there are 14,000 people dying a year due to lack of insurance. What are the Liberals waiting for! Go find one before it’s too late! The DNC is willing to let 28,000 die before the so called reforms kick in. Why wait?

Not quite. Here we see the failing of the 140 character limit. I had said, "The govt safety net is ER for the uninsured which is unbelievably inefficient. If my taxes are to pay for HC, I want it done right." To me, one of the big failures of our current system is our inefficient use of emergency rooms. Because we have so many uninsured, our ERs are crowded with people in the advanced stages of simple illnesses that could be easily treated with a clinic visit early on. I see my dentist twice a year for a cleaning, and get regularly scheduled maintenance done on my car. I do both of these things because they are more efficient in the long run. We need to do the same thing with health care. My tax (and insurance) dollars are paying for these inefficiencies. The current (private) insurance system hasn't been able to solve these market inefficiencies, so we need to find an alternative.

Let’s reduce taxes to the point where a Liberal can use his own money and choose who to help, and who will help them. But no, that’s less government control, and it doesn’t use other people’s money. And the Liberals go on and on about how everyone should do it their way. ‘We need to do…’ Who is the ‘We’? How about YOU do it however you like and stay the hell out of other people’s lives. Why don’t you offer to pay the cost of that inexpensive doctor visit for someone?

And this of course, exposes Liberal ignorance of what’s going on in the ER’s of Canada and England.

Zaius thinks that since all other reforms of the health care system have failed, then this one must too. That is the kind of defeatist moaning I heard conservatives berating when we were talking about the Iraq Surge. "All previous counter-insurgency strategies failed, so the Surge will too." Well guess what. According to conservatives (and Zaius too, I would geuss), we learned from our mistakes, made the necessary changes, and the Surge worked. I'm not necessarily optimistic that this round of health care reforms will work out all that well, but to assume it must fail simply because other reforms have failed is not entirely logical. Sure the odds are long, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do our best and try. Zaius seems to think (like all good Libertarians) that the government can't do anything right (war on terror excluded maybe?).

Another Liberal tactic. Pretend history never happened. (Lie about it)

This one will fail because it is no different from any of the other’s that have been tried. No different, because Liberals and Socialists are no different. No different because it’s based on Socialism, which has never worked. But Liberals will continue to lie. They will never explain what’s different about it, or why it will work in America, or how human nature is now different. Nope. Just lies meant to con people into agreeing and then it’s too late to change it because no one will give up free money. And they know it. It’s the plan. Liberals always act surprised when people change their behavior, but they know what they are doing.

Look at this Liberal goobelty gook: ‘to assume it must fail simply because other reforms have failed is not entirely logical’. Yes it is entirely logical, since the proposals are no different from the other systems that have failed. Another example of Liberals using ‘feelings’ to defend their un-defendable positions.

1) Innovation: What innovation has the private medical insurance industry given us? The only thing I can think of is risk assessment. And what has that innovation meant for the customer? For some it has meant more accurate premiums. But for others it has meant outright denial of coverage. It's almost paradoxical: they could set an accurate cost for the premium, but the Insurance companies don't want high-risk patients even if they can afford to pay the (economically) correct price. They'd rather play it safe with the lower risk patients.

Lies of omission. We live in an age of Medical Miracles, brought on by the profit motive. Liberals always ignore that Doctors are people. The market for medical advancement was fueled by people’s desire for it. Their ability to afford it is created by Capitalism. But don’t try to tell them that. They think doctors work for free, and the cost in insurance is caused solely by insurers raising their rates and increasing their profit margin.

Furthermore, it’s a Socialist argument. Insurers should not turn people away just because they might end up costing every other customer higher premiums. Oh yes they should, if they want to stay in business. Liberals always ignore that the insurers are only there because of their customers. Then they try to sneak in how everyone else should pay for someone else’s health care or health care insurance. The economically correct price would be accepted by an insurer if they had to compete for customers. But their customers will never accept increases in premiums to subsidize someone else. Furthermore, they already have to pass on costs to all customers due to regulations concerning minimum coverage. Once again we get an insight into how the Liberals think all money belongs to the Collective. If you can afford insurance for yourself, then the government has obviously left you with more than you need, and you are now required to use the extra for someone else.

There's one innovation that hasn't materialized yet: Electronic Medical Records. Simply digitizing medical records holds the potential to save us a ton of money, not to mention the treasure trove of research data to increase the efficacy of treatments. But only 17% of doctors use them, and according to Erik Brynjolfsson, of the Sloan School of Management at MIT, "This is really not a technology problem. It’s a matter of incentives and market failure."

They have the ‘potential’, but there is no incentive for the person that has to pay for it to implement it. Liberals are ignorant of the free market (which is actually just an extension of being free, but they hate economic freedom). If you force not only insurance companies, but DOCTORS to compete, you’ll see all kinds of cost savings being implemented. They will be implemented because the insurance companies and doctors will be scraping for any way to reduce what they charge to be able to compete for the consumer’s dollar. By the way, do you know what the Liberals mean by ‘matter of incentives and market failure’? They mean the Government has not offered free money to a market that didn’t do on its own what the Liberals wanted it to do.

3) Farmers and supermarkets don't refuse to sell to me. One of the greatest horrors of our current system is that if you have a chronic condition, and you get laid off, you are pretty much screwed if you don't find another job which offers group coverage. And given the tendency I have observed during this recession for companies to lay off their older workers in favor of the younger ones (anecdotal, I know, but prove me wrong), I would be very worried if I was 50+ and had anything remotely resembling a pre-existing condition.

Farmers and supermarkets don’t refuse to sell to you because they are in competition with all other Farmers and supermarkets. I bet if a local supermarket decided not to lower its prices because the place across the street lowered theirs, they wouldn’t be around anymore. I also bet that store’s customers started only paying 80% of what things cost, the stores prices would rise 20%. And if the store across the street decided not to play along, it would drive the other out of business. And what would happen to a store that did refuse to sell to you and anyone else for the same reasons. They would artificially reduce their market, which would hamper them against their competition. But don’t try to explain economics to Liberals, since they don’t believe in Capitalism, and only accept Socialism, without ever acknowledging it. Plus, there are already laws that deal with pre-existing conditions, called the HIPPA laws. And don’t ever let a Liberal try to tell you that somehow forcing insurers to provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions is still ‘insurance’.

The biggest problems with the current system don't revolve around the situation where you pick an insurer and stay with them for life. If you are lucky enough to do that (and being self-employed, maybe you are) then you may be fairly safe. But the vast majority of Americans do not have that luxury. I'm in my mid 30's and I've already had at least 4 different medical insurance companies cover me. You make an excellent point about the state-wide monopoly system we currently have. Insurance portability would be a boon, and we need to find a way to break down those artificial barriers.

So have I. So have many. So what. Maybe you should have done the smart thing and put away some money to cover the cost of insurance between jobs. But that falls under personal responsibility, and not Government protection, so Liberals won’t accept it. Funny, I seem to be able to change all other kinds of insurance at a whim. Home, Auto, Life, etc, is just a phone call away. Maybe it’s because these products are competitive. And don’t pretend that Liberals want Insurance portability. They want control. They could have done this with a 10 page bill and it would have been law by now. But they didn’t, because they don’t want people making choices, unless the choices are limited to what they deem is appropriate (The health care exchange). And where does this idea that somehow an insurance company is morally obligated to cover you even when you can’t pay? Why are not doctors included in that phrase? Why don’t doctors create their own little insurance plans where you pay them every month? How about I pay them as long as I’m healthy, and when I’m not, they have to get me healthy if they want me to resume payments?

Now, given that last paragraph (if you've made it this far) you're probably thinking, "Aha, I've finally got him to drink my Kool-Aid." And to a certain extent, I have. I think private insurance has an important roll to play. But private insurance and HSAs cannot solve the problems by themselves. Even if we had true national competition between all insurers, I think it's likely that we would still have a lot of the same problems we have now.

This is a deception. When Liberal dreams of a ‘public option’, prevention of denial of coverage at the same rates, and mandated purchase of insurance are in play, any one of them would KILL off all private insurance. Must I once again post the video of the Lying Liberal Liars Lying about what the public option is intended to do? Or show the disaster in Massachusetts? Or Oregon? How about the disastrous rationing taking hold in Canada? Or England? Or how the Hawaiian public insurance plan for children went bankrupt in a matter of months? The private free market (if allowed to be free, meaning, the citizens of the nation allowed the freedom to chose for themselves) will solve all of these problems. Its Government regulation brought on by Liberals that is the root of all these problems.

This statement is true stupidity: ‘I think private insurance has a role to play’. Really? ‘A role?’ How about ‘The role’. Private Insurance currently provides health insurance to 253 million Americans and their families. That’s more than ‘a role to play’. That’s called the American Free Market, which Liberals constantly seek to destroy. They want to steal from others, and give to themselves and those deemed ‘worthy’. Any plan that puts the consumer in control of their own money to make their own choices is a non-starter. The Collective is paramount. The individual is a slave to the Collective.

And lastly, whatever happened to the Free Clinics? Why doesn’t the Government allow Doctors and other providers to establish Free Clinics where the providers are immune from lawsuits? It’s because Lawyers give too much money to Liberal politicians and the DNC. Maggots and vultures gotta make a living I guess.